Python: Add test for type-tracking through decorators #5124
Conversation
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
In general, if there is _some_ decorator on a function, it might not be safe to track content out of it (since the decorator could do anything), but in this case, we can see what the decorator does, so we should be able to handle it (but we don't right now). By my understanding of how type-tracking works, if we track content through `my_decorator`, then we would also track content to the result of `unrelated_func()`, which I wanted to make sure our tests would catch. I found out the core of the problem seems to come from our lack of being able to track to the inner scope, and added an explicit test for that.
|
After looking through some more tests, I see we have tests on the dataflow level for this in https://github.com/github/codeql/blob/main/python/ql/test/experimental/dataflow/variable-capture/in.py |
yoff
approved these changes
Feb 10, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In general, if there is some decorator on a function, it might not be safe to track content out of it (since the decorator could do anything), but in this case, we can see what the decorator does, so we should be able to handle it (but we don't right now).
By my understanding of how type-tracking works, if we track content through
my_decorator, then we would also track content to the result ofunrelated_func(), which I wanted to make sure our tests would catch.I found out the core of the problem seems to come from our lack of being able to track to the inner scope, and added an explicit test for that.