along with tests, but no implementations (to ease reviewing).
---
I've put quite some thinking into what to call our concept for this.
[JS has `CookieDefinition`](581f4ed757/javascript/ql/src/semmle/javascript/frameworks/HTTP.qll (L148-L187)), but I couldn't find a matching concept in any other languages.
We used to call this [`CookieSet`](f07a7bf8cf/python/ql/src/semmle/python/web/Http.qll (L76)) (and had a corresponding `CookieGet`).
But for headers, [Go calls this `HeaderWrite`](cd1e14ed09/ql/src/semmle/go/concepts/HTTP.qll (L97-L131)) and [JS calls this `HeaderDefinition`](581f4ed757/javascript/ql/src/semmle/javascript/frameworks/HTTP.qll (L23-L46))
I think it would be really cool if we have a naming scheme that means the name for getting the value of a header on a incoming request is obvious. I think `HeaderWrite`/`HeaderRead` fulfils this best. We could go with `HeaderSet`/`HeaderGet`, but they feel a bit too vague to me. For me, I'm so used to talking about def-use, that I would immediately go for `HeaderDefinition` and `HeaderUse`, which could work, but is kinda strange.
So in the end that means I went with `CookieWrite`, since that allows using a consistent naming scheme for the future :)
This required quite some changes in the expected output. I think it's much more
clear what the selected nodes are now 👍 (but it was a bit boring work to fix
this up)
The meat of this PR is described in the new python/ql/test/experimental/meta/InlineTaintTest.qll file:
> Defines a InlineExpectationsTest for checking whether any arguments in
> `ensure_tainted` and `ensure_not_tainted` calls are tainted.
>
> Also defines query predicates to ensure that:
> - if any arguments to `ensure_not_tainted` are tainted, their annotation is marked with `SPURIOUS`.
> - if any arguments to `ensure_tainted` are not tainted, their annotation is marked with `MISSING`.
>
> The functionality of this module is tested in `ql/test/experimental/meta/inline-taint-test-demo`.
