Fix #796 (A13-3-1) - Consider reporting overloaded functions that are at different locations.

[rak3-sh]

Description

This PR fixes #796. In some cases CodeQL returns an overloaded function (from getAnOverload) of a candidate function that has the same location as the candidate function. The condition of occurrence is not yet concluded. However, this behavior causes confusion about which function is being referred to in the alerts generated by A13-3-1. In such cases, the overload and overloaded Function objects end up referring to the same function, which doesn't seem correct. Hence, it is proposed to add a check that examines the location of the overloaded functions and consider to report it only when they are different.

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:
  • A13-3-1

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?
  Since the minimized test case couldn't be created, the tests are not updated. However, the changes proposed are an additional fail-safe rather than any change in the existing algorithm.
• 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!)

[rak3-sh]

Hi @lcartey : Thanks for your help and support as always! Kindly let me know your valuable opinions on this PR.

[lcartey]

Thanks for taking a look at this! I've suggested a slight change of strategy here.

[lcartey]

As suggested in #796 (comment):

Suggested change

	f.getLocation() != c.getLocation() and
	not f = getAnEquivalentFunction(c) and

You would also need to add the relevant import (import codingstandards.cpp.FunctionEquvialence).