Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix FP reported in #466 #520

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Feb 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

rvermeulen
Copy link
Collaborator

@rvermeulen rvermeulen commented Feb 1, 2024

Description

Fixes #466

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:
    • rule number here
  • Queries have been modified for the following rules:
    • A7-1-2

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 format of shared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.

  • Confirmed

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!)

A call to a `constexpr` function is insufficient to determine that the
return value is compile time computed. We need to also validate that
its arguments are compile time computed.
@rvermeulen rvermeulen requested a review from knewbury01 February 1, 2024 01:07
This is required to exclude it from the FunctionMissingConstexpr.ql query
because it is not marked `constexpr`
Copy link
Contributor

@knewbury01 knewbury01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

some logic requiring reconsideration I believe

cpp/autosar/src/rules/A7-1-2/VariableMissingConstexpr.ql Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Need to consider all possible values passed as arguments and
default values.
Exclude non-static members from being marked as `constexpr`.
@rvermeulen rvermeulen requested a review from knewbury01 February 3, 2024 01:02
cpp/autosar/test/rules/A7-1-2/test.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
This reverts commit 7361106.
The change was incorrect and caused the rule to miss some cases.
Before the analysis only considered whether the source of an argument
passed to a function was computed at compile time. Now we consider
whether intermediate variables are also constexpr even though their
values are compile time constants, because otherwise the compiler
will accept the variable receiving the compiled time constant to be a
constexpr variable.
@rvermeulen rvermeulen enabled auto-merge February 8, 2024 22:21
Copy link
Contributor

@knewbury01 knewbury01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice!

I was naively thinking getting those extra testcases fairly accurate was as simple as - if another assignment (to anything) exists control flow upwards cut those out, but I definitely think that would also have not been as precise at what you implemented

very cool, think it looks good

@rvermeulen rvermeulen added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 12, 2024
Merged via the queue into github:main with commit 5ff2a10 Feb 12, 2024
21 checks passed
@rvermeulen rvermeulen deleted the rvermeulen/fix-466 branch February 12, 2024 22:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

A7-1-2: Consider constexpr function behaviour
2 participants