A5-2-6: Ignore cases with the same operator

[lcartey]

Description

Fixes #231

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:
  • A5-2-6

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!)

[nicolaswill]

One observation from evaluating the results against openpilot is that this query's results often produce pairs of missing parenthesis for both left and right operands. Perhaps we could reduce noise with a custom message in that case, e.g. "Both the left and right operands of logical operation are not parenthesized."

@lcartey Thoughts on making such a change?

[lcartey]

One observation from evaluating the results against openpilot is that this query's results often produce pairs of missing parenthesis for both left and right operands. Perhaps we could reduce noise with a custom message in that case, e.g. "Both the left and right operands of logical operation are not parenthesized."

@nicolaswill Ah, good observation - I hadn't thought about that. However, I think this is a case where it will display differently in Code Scanning vs in the VS Code CodeQL plugin. In Code Scanning it will be grouped by primary location and message, so in the case both operands of an logical operator are in contravention we will report one result, with two explanations. This is similar to how we handle source/sink groupings - if a sink is the primary location, we will group all sources that flow to that sink together into a single result with multiple explanations.

I think the above is sufficient to reduce noise in this case, so I'm going to go ahead and merge this, but feel free to open an issue if you still think we should produce a single message in this case.