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

Restore deleted deviations suppression query #876

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lcartey
Copy link
Collaborator

@lcartey lcartey commented Mar 26, 2025

Description

I incorrectly deleted the DeviationsSuppression.ql query in #807. This query is still used as part of generating our Guideline Compliance Summary, and is useful for customers wanting to generate a SARIF file including suppression information.

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:
    • rule number here

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!)

@Copilot Copilot bot review requested due to automatic review settings March 26, 2025 11:48
Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull Request Overview

This pull request restores the previously deleted DeviationsSuppression.ql query by adding a corresponding change note.

  • Restores the DeviationsSuppression.ql query used for generating the Guideline Compliance Summary
  • Adds a change note to document the restoration
Files not reviewed (4)
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/deviations/DeviationsSuppression.qhelp: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/deviations/DeviationsSuppression.ql: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/test/deviations/deviations_report_deviated/DeviationsSuppression.expected: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/test/deviations/deviations_report_deviated/DeviationsSuppression.qlref: 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 added 2 commits March 31, 2025 20:42
This is required for our reporting scripts.

Changes implemented to support reporting of locations and
messages for new deviation formats.
Copy link
Contributor

@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, just some small points to bring up!

else
// Find the last column for a location on the next line
endcolumn =
max(Location l |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps the logic here, and the predicates getLastLineNumber, getLastColumnNumber from DeviationsSuppression.ql, should perhaps be a library in cpp/common

@@ -336,26 +341,60 @@ class CodeIdentifierDeviation extends TCodeIndentifierDeviation {
)
}

predicate hasLocationInfo(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

May want to a comment that this is the location of the suppressed range rather than the location of the comment itself.

or
this = TMultiLineDeviation(_, _, _, filepath, suppressedLine, endline) and
suppressedColumn = 1 and
endcolumn = 1
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some potential inconsistencies. Firstly, the suppressed area includes the text of the first comment, but ends before the text of the second comment.

Additionally, it looks like:

  // codeql::misra_deviation_begin(foo)
  non_compliant_code // codeql::misra_deviation_end(foo)

neither deviates the non_compliant_code nor triggers an invalid deviation warning. The deviated location matched here would not include non_compliant_code either.

Do you think either of these are an issue worth filing or fixing?

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.

2 participants