Add new MISRA query suites and deprecate ambiguously named suites

[lcartey]

Description

This PR makes some changes to the query suites available for MISRA C and MISRA C++:

• Renamed the default suites to misra-cpp-default.qls and misra-c-default.qls to avoid confusion between them, and deprecated the old suites.
• Added new query suites to enable running only the mandatory, required or advisory level queries.
• Added a new query suite for MISRA C which enables users to run the current set of queries for MISRA C (equating to MISRA C 2012, 3rd Edition, First Revision + Amendment 2). This gives users the option to retain the current set of queries as we added new queries to the default suite for MISRA C 2023.

To be able to write a query suite for the latter, I have added a set of new tags to the MISRA C queries to determine when those rules were added to the standard.

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:
  • rule number here

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!)

[MichaelRFairhurst]

Looks great, only noticed whitespace issues which may not matter!

[MichaelRFairhurst]

Would it be a valuable follow-up to check tags against a dictionary in some of our CI package json verification scripts?

So that mispellings amednment-2, maintanability and/or empty tags: [] are rejected? We could also add a check that misra c contains a relevant revision tag, and that the misra revision tags don't appear in c cert rules.

[lcartey]

Would it be a valuable follow-up to check tags against a dictionary in some of our CI package json verification scripts?

We validate the tags against the rule schema - that avoids the typo/mis-spelling issues, because the tags can only be from a specified list.

We could also add a check that misra c contains a relevant revision tag, and that the misra revision tags don't appear in c cert rules.

Great idea, I've updated the validation script to do this.