Before I added `--max-import-depth=2`, there was a bit of trouble, where it
would alert on `from pkg_ok import foo2` -- since all the `pkg_ok.foo<n>`
modules were missing, I guess the analysis didn't make any assumptions on
whether `foo2` is a module or a regular attribute.
So I've been thinking a bit about import pkg_ok.foo1 after reading the Python
references for imports of submodules
https://docs.python.org/3/reference/import.html#submodules
> When a submodule is loaded using any mechanism (...) a binding is placed in the
parent module’s namespace to the submodule object. For example, if package spam
has a submodule foo, after importing spam.foo, spam will have an attribute foo
which is bound to the submodule.
That does at least explain what is going on here.
I feel that import pkg_ok.foo1 might be a very contrived example. In principle
it should be an alert, since the module pkg_ok ends up with an import of itself,
but my gut feeling is that in practice it's not a very important piece of code
to give alerts for. if we really care about giving these import related alerts,
we could probably add a new query for this pattern, as it's kind of surprising
that it works when you're just an ordinary python programmer.
We can't understand the real `six.py` file, so we have some internal plumbing
that enables us to handle six anyway. While updating that, I had a hell of a lot
of trouble with these tests.
What we actually want, is to see that we can understand what the values imported
from six are (i.e., their points-to information). I added a few more, that I
think would be useful. If we can figure out all of these, I don't actually care
if we're doing it by understanding the real `six.py` file, or by some internal
trick.
I verified that we don't get results with the real `six.py` file by disabling
our internal tricks, and putting a copy of six.py just next to test.py.
We used to have an other file that would list all the properties we knew and
their value, but that turned out to be a fragile and annoying test, since the
results differed from which version of python you ran it with (3.5 vs 3.8) and
which machine you ran it on (my machien vs jenkins). I don't care about the
results in this file, and I can certainly not eyeball it to see if it's correct
or not.
Replacing `Value.booleanValue`. We wanted to match `Object.booleanValue` that
only gives a result if it is either `true` or `false`, but also wanted to keep
the flexibility to see if the Value _could_ be `true`/`false`. We don't have a
motivating usecase, so let's see if we ever need it :P
+ fix modernisation regression on py/jinja2/autoescape-false
Some of the tests currently fail, since they can't reproduce the old tests
results (since the sinks/sources defined in the library code are not
HttpResponseTaintSink/HttpRequestTaintSource)
