This means that DataFlowCall is only for resolvable calls, which might not seem
like a big thing in itself, but enables the next commit to actually work :P
Notice the strange thing with treating `mypkg.foo(42)` as a ClassCall,
but completely ignoring `mypkg.subpkg.bar(43)` -- due to having the two
`ClassValue`s:
- `Missing module attribute mypkg.foo`
- `Missing module attribute mypkg.subpkg`
But not `Missing module attribute mypkg.subpkg` with the current import
structure.
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 👍
- move from custom concept `LogOutput` to standard concept `Logging`
- remove `Log.qll` from experimental frameworks
- fold models into standard models (naively for now)
- stdlib:
- make Logger module public
- broaden definition of instance
- add `extra` keyword as possible source
- flak: add app.logger as logger instance
- django: `add django.utils.log.request_logger` as logger instance
(should we add the rest?)
- remove LogOutput from experimental concepts
I am slightly concerned that the test now generates many more
intermediate results. I suppose that maes the analysis heavy.
Should the new library get a new name instead, so the old code
does not get evaluated?
Particularly in value and literal patterns.
This is getting a little bit into the guards aspect of matching.
We could similarly add reverse flow in terms of
sub-patterns storing to a sequence pattern,
a flow step from alternatives to an-or-pattern, etc..
It does not seem too likely that sources are embedded in patterns
to begin with, but for secrets perhaps?
It is illustrated by the literal test. The value test still fails.
I believe we miss flow in general from the static attribute.
The idea behind optional results is that there may be instances where
each line of source code has many results and you don't want to annotate
all of them, but you still want to ensure that any annotations you do
have are correct.
This change makes that possible by exposing a new predicate
`hasOptionalResult`, which has the same signature as `hasResult`.
Results produced by `hasOptionalResult` will be matched against any
annotations, but the lack of a matching annotation will not cause a
failure.
We will use this in the inline tests for the API edge getASubclass,
because for each API path that uses getASubclass there is always a
shorter path that does not use it, and thus we can't use the normal
shortest-path matching approach that works for other API Graph tests.
