Since that apparently impacts call graph resolution with points-to :O
Also interesting that global flow was only not working for those cases
because of the tricky ifs... still need to 100% figure out how those ifs
are messing up the analysis :|
By giving all variables unique names
I also added a comment with the function name from the normal tests, so
its' easily visible what these tests are testing
I had to rewrite the SINK1-SINK7 definitions, since this new requirement
complained that we had to add this `MISSING: flow` annotation :D
Doing this implementation also revealed that there was a bug, since I
did not compare files when checking for these `MISSING:` annotations. So
fixed that up in the implementation for inline taint tests as well.
(extra whitespace in argumentPassing.py to avoid changing line numbers
for other tests)
I went with NormalDataflowTest to signify that if you don't know what
you're looking for, this is probably the one. I did not want to just
call it DataflowTest, since that becomes a big vague when there are also
`FlowTest.qll` and `MaximalFlowTest.qll` -- I'm open to renaming this
though 👍
Add a step from that `CfgNode` to the corresponding `EssaNode`.
The intended effect is seen in `ImpliesDataflow.expected`.
The efeect seen in other `.expected`-files is that parameter nodes
change type, that the extra steps are seen, and that flow from
`EssaVar`s is mirrored in flow from `CfgNode`s.
There is one surprise, which is the `.0` node in
`coverage/localFlow.expected`.
This required a minor change in the type tracker implementation, but
apart from that no other changes appear to be needed. Seems to clean
up the test output quite a bit.
The extra hist in `test.py` seen in `globalStep.expected`
are due to the removal of manual filtering code.
(That code was from when dataflow had many strange things in it.)
Only have one type of callable, but have an extra type of call.
A constructor call directs to an init callable
(should also handle `call` overrides at some point).
