fix(analyzer): Small fixes - #336
Merged
Merged
Conversation
misonijnik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 23, 2026
The status section said the cause was repaired. It is not, and the commit was never meant to repair it. Measured on the reproduction project, 3 runs each: 278/300/314 statements with differing facts before #336, 268/392/364 after, out of 5244. The measurement that produced the wrong claim compared a probe hash that mixes in a processed-event counter. That counter varies between runs of both builds, so it could never separate them; the delayed-analyzer composition it was meant to sense is in fact identical in both. The reproduction project also turns out not to answer the fingerprint question at all: its fingerprints are stable before and after, because each of its findings has a single route from source to sink. Reproducing the drift needs a project where a finding has several. This makes the sink hash the mitigation rather than a convenience, which is noted where it is documented as the default.
misonijnik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2026
The status section said the cause was repaired. It is not, and the commit was never meant to repair it. Measured on the reproduction project, 3 runs each: 278/300/314 statements with differing facts before #336, 268/392/364 after, out of 5244. The measurement that produced the wrong claim compared a probe hash that mixes in a processed-event counter. That counter varies between runs of both builds, so it could never separate them; the delayed-analyzer composition it was meant to sense is in fact identical in both. The reproduction project also turns out not to answer the fingerprint question at all: its fingerprints are stable before and after, because each of its findings has a single route from source to sink. Reproducing the drift needs a project where a finding has several. This makes the sink hash the mitigation rather than a convenience, which is noted where it is documented as the default.
misonijnik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2026
The status section said the cause was repaired. It is not, and the commit was never meant to repair it. Measured on the reproduction project, 3 runs each: 278/300/314 statements with differing facts before #336, 268/392/364 after, out of 5244. The measurement that produced the wrong claim compared a probe hash that mixes in a processed-event counter. That counter varies between runs of both builds, so it could never separate them; the delayed-analyzer composition it was meant to sense is in fact identical in both. The reproduction project also turns out not to answer the fingerprint question at all: its fingerprints are stable before and after, because each of its findings has a single route from source to sink. Reproducing the drift needs a project where a finding has several. This makes the sink hash the mitigation rather than a convenience, which is noted where it is documented as the default.
misonijnik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2026
The status section said the cause was repaired. It is not, and the commit was never meant to repair it. Measured on the reproduction project, 3 runs each: 278/300/314 statements with differing facts before #336, 268/392/364 after, out of 5244. The measurement that produced the wrong claim compared a probe hash that mixes in a processed-event counter. That counter varies between runs of both builds, so it could never separate them; the delayed-analyzer composition it was meant to sense is in fact identical in both. The reproduction project also turns out not to answer the fingerprint question at all: its fingerprints are stable before and after, because each of its findings has a single route from source to sink. Reproducing the drift needs a project where a finding has several. This makes the sink hash the mitigation rather than a convenience, which is noted where it is documented as the default.
misonijnik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 25, 2026
The status section said the cause was repaired. It is not, and the commit was never meant to repair it. Measured on the reproduction project, 3 runs each: 278/300/314 statements with differing facts before #336, 268/392/364 after, out of 5244. The measurement that produced the wrong claim compared a probe hash that mixes in a processed-event counter. That counter varies between runs of both builds, so it could never separate them; the delayed-analyzer composition it was meant to sense is in fact identical in both. The reproduction project also turns out not to answer the fingerprint question at all: its fingerprints are stable before and after, because each of its findings has a single route from source to sink. Reproducing the drift needs a project where a finding has several. This makes the sink hash the mitigation rather than a convenience, which is noted where it is documented as the default.
misonijnik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 4, 2026
The status section said the cause was repaired. It is not, and the commit was never meant to repair it. Measured on the reproduction project, 3 runs each: 278/300/314 statements with differing facts before #336, 268/392/364 after, out of 5244. The measurement that produced the wrong claim compared a probe hash that mixes in a processed-event counter. That counter varies between runs of both builds, so it could never separate them; the delayed-analyzer composition it was meant to sense is in fact identical in both. The reproduction project also turns out not to answer the fingerprint question at all: its fingerprints are stable before and after, because each of its findings has a single route from source to sink. Reproducing the drift needs a project where a finding has several. This makes the sink hash the mitigation rather than a convenience, which is noted where it is documented as the default.
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
1 participant
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.
https://github.com/seqra/opentaint-test/actions/runs/31153991732