To ease the rollout of this test, currently we only report missing points-to
information for nodes that either
- appear as an argument in a call to a function named `check`, or
- appear inside a scope where the first line is annotated with a comment ending
in "check".
The idea behind the second version is that once we have points-to running at a
level where no node inside a scope that _ought_ to have points-to is missing
this information, we can simply remove all uses of `check(...)` from inside this
scope, and annotate the entire scope with `# check`. Once this has been done for
the entire file, we can then remove all the comments and just require
_everything_ to be checked.
Note that I don't expect all nodes to have the need for points-to information.
For instance, there are nodes representing scope entry and exit, and for these
it doesn't make sense to require that they "point-to" anything. Similarly,
`NameNode` appearing in a "store" (i.e. as the left hand side of an assignment)
do not strictly need to have points-to information, although it might be more
intuitive if they did.
Thus, the `relevant_node` predicate will almost certainly need to be extended to
exclude these kinds of nodes.
Following the setup I invented for library-tests/taint/unpacking.
TestStep is still a bit annoying, since the output is not easy to eyeball; but
for now I guess we can live with it :)
I honestly didn't get the point of DistinctStringKinds.ql, other than showing we
can handle multiple taint kinds
This is a temporary fix!
Added minimal working example (MWE) as a regression, so it's easier to fix the
real problem.
only Python 3 is facing the problem -- and without --max-import-depth=1 the test
times out at 10 minutes :O
Introduced a regression, since the old code was:
```
predicate is_a_string_type(ClassObject seqtype) {
seqtype = theBytesType() and major_version() = 2
or
seqtype = theUnicodeType()
}
```
but *now* we're good!
+ Extend PropertyInternal.getSetter to handle non-decorator
+ Add PropertyInternal.getDeleter
It seems like a bit hacky way to do things, since we're not using the
PropertySetterOrDeleter class at all, but for now I'll leave it be.
e.(StrConst).isDocString() can only hold if e instanceof StrConst, since we have
that condition on the line above, we can safely remove this condition.
