codeql-coding-standards
codeql-coding-standards copied to clipboard
Rule 1.2: Address false positives for variable length arrays, improve reporting
Description
- Improves reporting by providing a more descriptive message of which C extensions were used.
- Improves reporting by grouping results generated from a macro and reporting them at the generating macro location instead.
- Fixes https://github.com/github/codeql-coding-standards/issues/701.
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:
- [x] Queries have been modified for the following rules:
-
RULE-1-2
-
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?
- [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.
- [ ] 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
- [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
- [ ] 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!)