Luke Cartey

See also: https://github.com/github/codeql-coding-standards/issues/20 As it appears we do sometimes elide the copy/move constructors.

Modify https://github.com/github/codeql-coding-standards/blob/main/cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exceptions/ExceptionFlow.qll#LL315C49-L315C97 to exclude calls to copy or move constructors we think are elided.

Reviewing the query, the description above is not accurate. The query already only reports `BinaryOperation`s, which does not include `FieldAccess`es (such as `->` and `.`). I have investigated whether these...

Issue body updated: the problem has been identified as related to (a) confusion caused by the alert message about where the brackets should apply and (b) an over-zealous rule.

This is reported by a query called `GratuitousUseOfParentheses.ql`, and should have been reported with the message: > Gratuitous use of parentheses around ...&... The reason we have this query is...

Issue body updated to also consider `wait` and `wait_for` in addition to `wait_until`.

Reassigning and re-categorising to High impact based on https://github.com/github/codeql-coding-standards/issues/91.

@adam-vonderviszt thank you for opening this issue! I believe we already support two code-identifiers on the same comment line - as we support one at the start and one at...

This rule only reports ODR violations where we are sure the two definitions coexist through static linking. Otherwise we could report false positive where multiple programs are represented in the...

Re-categorising as a test improvement.