I think we should write our tests in a way that puts points-to in the
best condition to resolve calls. Although this specific change did not
change much, it should help set us up for success in the future 👍
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 👍
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.
- also update `validTest.py`, but commented out for now
otherwise CI will fail until we force it to run with Python 3.10
- added debug utility for dataflow (`dataflowTestPaths.ql`)
