We changed the test query when the query was changed so that the
comments in the test file would stay the same.
I've reverted the test query and updated the comments in the test file.
This avoids problems in the branch switching to use-use flow.
The extra nodes in .expected files are due to the changes from
https://github.com/github/codeql/pull/13717, which are not applied to
configuration classes extending DataFlow::Configuration or
TaintTracking::Configuration.
Removed edges were only there originally due to multiple configurations
being in scope. `DataFlow::PathNode` has union semantics for
configurations. Nodes are only generated if they are reachable from a
source, but this includes sources from other configurations.
No alerts are lost.
The extra nodes in .expected files are due to the changes from
https://github.com/github/codeql/pull/13717, which are not applied to
configuration classes extending DataFlow::Configuration or
TaintTracking::Configuration.
The extra nodes in .expected files are due to the changes from
https://github.com/github/codeql/pull/13717, which are not applied to
configuration classes extending DataFlow::Configuration or
TaintTracking::Configuration.
Removed nodes and edges were only there originally due to multiple
configurations being in scope. `DataFlow::PathNode` has union semantics
for configurations. Nodes are only generated if they are reachable from
a source, but this includes sources from other configurations.
The extra nodes in .expected files are due to the changes from
https://github.com/github/codeql/pull/13717, which are not applied to
configuration classes extending DataFlow::Configuration or
TaintTracking::Configuration.
The extra nodes in .expected files are due to the changes from
https://github.com/github/codeql/pull/13717, which are not applied to
configuration classes extending DataFlow::Configuration or
TaintTracking::Configuration.
This was amended as part of https://github.com/github/codeql/pull/12186, but the conversion was inadequate because the new implementation didn't work when a sink (type conversion) led directly to a non-`localTaintStep` step, such as a store step or an interprocedural step. Here I move the sink back one step to the argument of the type
conversion and sanitize the result of the conversion instead, to ensure there is always a unique local successor to a sink.
This should eliminate unexpected extra results that resulted from https://github.com/github/codeql/pull/12186. Independently there are also *lost* results that stem from needing a higher `fieldFlowBranchLimit` that are not addressed in this PR, but raising that limit is a performance risk and so I will address this separately.
