Add basic single translation unit query suites

[lcartey]

Description

This PR adds two new query suites for C++, autosar-single-translation-unit.qls and cert-single-translation-unit.qls which are used to run queries which do not require a whole program analysis. Specifically, they can be run on a database representing a single compilation (i.e. translation unit) without introducing new false positives compared to a whole program analysis.

To enable this information to be stored with the metadata for each query, I have added a new tag scope/single-translation-unit. In addition, I anticipate adding another tag scope/system for queries which are confirmed as requiring a system wide program analysis. The terminology is copied from MISRA C 2012, which already specifies the scope for each rule.

Unfortunately CERT C++ and AUTOSAR C++ do not provide such scoping information, so we will need to review queries individually to determine which are assigned to each scope. For the initial release of this query suite I have reviewed the following rule packages:

• BannedFunctions
• BannedLibraries
• BannedSyntax
• BannedTypes

I choose these packages as I believed they had a high likelihood of being single-translation-unit suitable. As it turned out, all 49 of the queries in these packages were scope/single-translation-unit.

We will review additional rule packages in future releases to expand the set of queries included in this suite.

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 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!)

[mbaluda]

lgtm