(C/C++) "<<=" has the wrong methodFullName?

[NemoTR]

  "50": {
    "name": "<operators>.assignmentShiftLeft",
    "signature": "",
    "code": "c <<= 1",
    "typeFullName": "<empty>",
    "columnNumber": 5,
    "order": 12,
    "methodFullName": "<operators>.assignmentShiftLeft",
    "_label": "CALL",
    "argumentIndex": -1,
    "dynamicTypeHintFullName": [],
    "dispatchType": "STATIC_DISPATCH",
    "lineNumber": 9,
    "id": 50,
    "inpdg": true,
    "callto": "EXTN"
  },

Why the methodFullName of <<= is '<operators>.assignmentShiftLeft' while others' methodFullName is '<operator>.xxx'?
Is this a little mistake?

[NemoTR]

I also found that >>= had the methodFullName "<operators>.assignmentArithmeticShiftRight".

  "53": {
    "name": "<operators>.assignmentArithmeticShiftRight",
    "signature": "",
    "code": "c >>= 1",
    "typeFullName": "<empty>",
    "columnNumber": 5,
    "order": 13,
    "methodFullName": "<operators>.assignmentArithmeticShiftRight",
    "_label": "CALL",
    "argumentIndex": -1,
    "dynamicTypeHintFullName": [],
    "dispatchType": "STATIC_DISPATCH",
    "lineNumber": 10,
    "id": 53,
    "inpdg": true,
    "callto": "EXTN"
  },

Maybe this is intended?

[max-leuthaeuser]

Thanks for reporting this. Its clearly a typo. We'll fix that.

[mpollmeier]

This is indeed a little mistake/typo, but unfortunately fixing these constants would be a backwards incompatible change. There are situations where we introduce breaking changes, but I don't think fixing some typos is a strong enough mandate.

For now we'll just add a TODO, and can make the change next time there's a breaking change:
ShiftLeftSecurity/codepropertygraph#1630