Skip to content

Add exclusion check for query IncludeGuardsNotUsed - #1194

Open
mbaluda wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
mbaluda/exp37-c
Open

Add exclusion check for query IncludeGuardsNotUsed#1194
mbaluda wants to merge 4 commits into
mainfrom
mbaluda/exp37-c

Conversation

@mbaluda

@mbaluda mbaluda commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description

Fix the problems predicate in IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll that did not include an exclusion check (isExcluded).

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:
    • DIR-4-10
    • M16-2-3
    • RULE-19-2-1

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!)

Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings September 4, 2026 17:46

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The result-changing behavior needs a change note and dedicated test coverage.

Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.

Review tier: Balanced
Findings: 1 Low severity

New issues introduced by this change (1)
Severity Finding
Low severity cpp/​common/​src/​codingstandards/​cpp/​rules/​includeguardsnotused/​IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll — The newly introduced exclusion behavior is not exercised by the existing C or C++ include-guard…
What changed in this PR

Adds exclusion handling to shared C/C++ include-guard queries.

Changes:

  • Suppresses findings for excluded header files.
  • Missing required change note and exclusion-specific tests.
  • VS Code/OpenPilot validation remains unconfirmed.
File Description
IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll Adds the exclusion check to problems.
Suppressed comments (1)

cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/includeguardsnotused/IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll:27

  • This new exclusion changes the results of existing shared queries by suppressing alerts. The repository policy in docs/development_handbook.md:469-475 therefore requires a dated change note, but this PR does not add one and marks it as unnecessary. Please add a user-facing change note covering the affected include-guard queries.
  not isExcluded(file, getQuery()) and

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Copilot AI commented Sep 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mbaluda I've opened a new pull request, #1195, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

Copilot AI and others added 2 commits September 4, 2026 20:56
…k feedback (#1195)

* Add passing/failing tests for IncludeGuardsNotUsed exclusion behavior
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.

3 participants