Package Declarations2

[knewbury01]

Description

Declarations 2

and making the decision to omit implementing MISRA RULE-17-6, see note below

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:
  • DCL41-C
  • DCL38-C
  • DCL40-C
• 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!)

[knewbury01]

Notes for RULE-17-6

I think we do not have sufficient syntax in the database to handle this.

Have tried the following testcase:

void f(int a[1]) { // COMPLIANT
  int i[1];
}

void f1(int a[static 1]); // NON_COMPLIANT

with variations on:

from Function f 
select f, f.getFullSignature(), f.getParameterString()

which yields: int\[1\] a as the parameter there
and

from Parameter p 
select p , p.toString(), p.getADeclarationEntry(), p.getTypedName()

which yields stuff like

declaration of a,  int[1] a

also there is no way to associate instances of use of keywords that are specifiers to locations, as the Specifier type only returns dummy locations. seems like this would have to be a regex like syntax match and without the syntax we cannot do it.

[knewbury01]

Notes DCL40-C

this rule is fairly similar to M3-2-1 however the function declaration comparison is more strict and the object comparison portion has some improvements. If those improvements seem to make sense for the object portion of M3-2-1, it may make more sense to use a shared implementation and propagate those changes there too?

[mbaluda]

Looks good!

[mbaluda]

@knewbury01 I updated one of the .expected files, otherwise it looks ready to me