Not quite sure how to deal with these cases of safe if UNIX-only, otherwise not
safe.
If/when we actually try to deal with these, we also need to figure that
out. We _could_ split this queyr into 3: (1) for path injection on any
platform, (2) path injection on windows, (3) path injection on UNIX. Then
UNIX-only projects could disable the path-injection on windows query. -- that's
my best idea, if you have better ideas, DO tell 👍
Notice that there is no new results for line 54
I also added a test for the short-named version of a flag, just since I didn't
see any of those already. That just works out of the box (due to points-to).
Although this test is added under the `wrong` folder, the current results from
this CodeQL test is actually correct (compared with the Python
interpreter). However, they don't match what the extractor does when invoked
with `codeql database create`.
Since I deemed it "more than an easy fix" to change the extractor behavior for
`codeql database create` to match the real python behavior, and it turned out to
be quite a challenge to change the extractor behavior for all tests, I'm just
going to make THIS ONE test-case behave like the extractor will with `codeql
database create`...
This is a first commit, to show how the extractor works with qltest by default.
Inspired by the debugging in https://github.com/github/codeql/issues/4640
The old Semmle duplicate-code detection code has never been done when
extracting databases for the CodeQL CLI, except that `codeql test run`
will run it _just_ in order to support tests of the feature. With the
sunsetting of Odasa there's no need to even _test_ the feature anymore.
This commit removes those tests that fail when the duplicate-code
detector is turned off. Once it is merged and bumped, we can finally
remove it from `codeql`.
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`.
