Skip to content

Comments

Fix path problem locations in .expected for 8-1-1, 8-1-2#1057

Open
MichaelRFairhurst wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
michaelrfairhurst/fix-path-problem-nodes-from-outside-workspace
Open

Fix path problem locations in .expected for 8-1-1, 8-1-2#1057
MichaelRFairhurst wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
michaelrfairhurst/fix-path-problem-nodes-from-outside-workspace

Conversation

@MichaelRFairhurst
Copy link
Collaborator

@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst commented Feb 24, 2026

Description

please enter the description of your change here

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!)

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings February 24, 2026 21:11
Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

This PR fixes path problem locations in the .expected test result files for MISRA rules 8-1-1 and 8-1-2. The changes replace absolute paths to external standard library implementations with local test file paths, improving test stability across different compilers and environments.

Changes:

  • Added local implementations of std::forward and std::function in both test files to ensure all path problem nodes and edges reference local paths
  • Updated all .expected file entries to reference the new local paths instead of external standard library paths
  • Adjusted line numbers throughout the .expected files to account for the 35 new lines added at the beginning of each test file

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-8-1-2/test.cpp Added local std utilities implementation (lines 1-35) with documentation explaining the approach
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-8-1-2/ImplicitCapturesDisallowedInNonTransientLambda.expected Updated all path references from external library to local test file and adjusted line numbers for 23 query results
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-8-1-1/test.cpp Added identical local std utilities implementation (lines 1-35) as in RULE-8-1-2
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-8-1-1/NonTransientLambdaImplicitlyCapturesThis.expected Updated all path references from external library to local test file and adjusted line numbers for 16 query results

Copy link
Collaborator

@mbaluda mbaluda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

@mbaluda mbaluda enabled auto-merge February 25, 2026 10:25
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.

2 participants