Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ReturnRefOrPointerToAutoVar: Exclude global or member variables #842

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 21, 2025

Conversation

lcartey
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey commented Jan 20, 2025

Description

This false positive case was introduced when the rule was shared during the creation of RULE-6-8-2, where Variable was used instead of StackVariable.

Fixes #805.

Change request type

  • Release or process automation (GitHub workflows, internal scripts)
  • Internal documentation
  • External documentation
  • Query files (.ql, .qll, .qls or unit tests)
  • External scripts (analysis report or other code shipped as part of a release)

Rules with added or modified queries

  • No rules added
  • Queries have been added for the following rules:
    • rule number here
  • Queries have been modified for the following rules:
    • M5-7-1
    • RULE-6-8-2

Release change checklist

A change note (development_handbook.md#change-notes) is required for any pull request which modifies:

  • The structure or layout of the release artifacts.
  • The evaluation performance (memory, execution time) of an existing query.
  • The results of an existing query in any circumstance.

If you are only adding new rule queries, a change note is not required.

Author: Is a change note required?

  • Yes
  • No

🚨🚨🚨
Reviewer: Confirm that format of shared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.

  • Confirmed

Reviewer: Confirm that either a change note is not required or the change note is required and has been added.

  • Confirmed

Query development review checklist

For PRs that add new queries or modify existing queries, the following checklist should be completed by both the author and reviewer:

Author

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

Reviewer

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

This false positive case was introduced when the rule was shared
during the creation of RULE-6-8-2, where `Variable` was used
instead of `StackVariable`.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Files not reviewed (2)
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/returnreferenceorpointertoautomaticlocalvariable/ReturnReferenceOrPointerToAutomaticLocalVariable.qll: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/test/rules/returnreferenceorpointertoautomaticlocalvariable/test.cpp: Language not supported

Tip: If you use Visual Studio Code, you can request a review from Copilot before you push from the "Source Control" tab. Learn more

@lcartey lcartey added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 21, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 59ff051 Jan 21, 2025
25 checks passed
@lcartey lcartey deleted the lcartey/fix-returnref-member-var branch January 21, 2025 22:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

M7-5-1: Class members are considered as **automatic** variables
2 participants