Rule 11.4 improvements

[lcartey]

Description

This pull request makes the following improvements to the query for Rule 11.4:

• Consider 0 to be a null pointer constant (fixes https://github.com/github/codeql-coding-standards/issues/331).
• Report the actual types and order in the error message.
• If the result arises from a macro invocation that is not function-like, then report the macro itself. This helps reduce the overall number of results, and reduces the duplication by not reporting expansions of the same macro multiple times.
• If the result arises from a macro invocation which is function-like we now report the macro in addition to the regular result, to aid with debugging.

Change request type

• [ ] Release or process automation (GitHub workflows, internal scripts)
• [ ] Internal documentation
• [ ] External documentation
• [x] 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
• [x] Queries have been modified for the following rules:
  • RULE-11-4

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?

• [x] 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.

• [x] Confirmed

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

• [x] 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

• [x] Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
• [x] Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
• [x] Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
• [x] Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
• [x] 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.
• [x] Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
• [x] Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
• [x] Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
• [x] Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

Reviewer

• [x] Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
• [x] Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
• [x] Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
• [x] Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
• [x] 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.
• [x] Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
• [x] Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
• [x] Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
• [x] Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)