JS: change precision of js/loop-bound-injection to high#2165
Merged
semmle-qlci merged 1 commit intogithub:masterfrom Oct 25, 2019
Merged
JS: change precision of js/loop-bound-injection to high#2165semmle-qlci merged 1 commit intogithub:masterfrom
semmle-qlci merged 1 commit intogithub:masterfrom
Conversation
Contributor
asger-semmle
left a comment
asger-semmle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM apart from the one comment
Contributor
Author
|
Performance evaluation is done. |
Contributor
|
@asger-semmle, this looks good to go? |
asger-semmle
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2019
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Change precision of
js/loop-bound-injectionto high.Also fixes an FP.
We already found that kind of FP for
for (var i = 0...loops, so it was just a case of adapting it for_.forEach(...)loops.Me taking a rough look at the results from the Chris API gives an ~80% TP rate, which is better than I expected, and I'm therefore upgrading precision of the query to high.
There are still false positives, but they are hard to eliminate in a nice way.
Performance evaluation is on the way, but I would be surprised if performance changed.