Adds a few unbinds to prevent bad joins from occurring.
Firstly, we never want to join `StepSummary::step` with
`TypeTracker::append` on `summary` as the first join, as the resulting
relation is absolutely massive. So we decouple the two occurrences of
`summary` by unbinding each of them.
Secondly, in some cases the node we're stepping to (`nodeTo` for type
trackers, `nodeFrom` for type backtrackers) will get joined eagerly
with the typetracker one is defining, and again this produces an
uncomfortably large intermediate join. A bit of unbinding prevents this
as well.
This requires a bit of explanation, so strap in.
Firstly, because we use `LocalSourceNode`s as the start and end points
of our `StepSummary::step` relation, there's no need to include
`simpleLocalFlowStep` (via `typePreservingStep`) in `smallstep`. Indeed,
since the successor node for a `step` is a `LocalSourceNode`, and local
sources never have incoming flow, this is entirely futile -- we can find
values for `mid` and `nodeTo` that satisfy the body of `step`, but
`nodeTo` will never be a `LocalSourceNode`.
With this in mind, we can simplify `smallstep` to only refer to
`jumpStep`.
This then brings the other uses of `typePreservingStep` into question.
The only other place we use this predicate is in the `TypeTracker` and
`TypeBackTracker` `smallstep` predicates. Note, however, that here we
no longer need `jumpStep` to be part of `typeTrackingStep` (as it is
already accounted for in `StepSummary::smallstep`) so we can simplify
to `simpleLocalFlowStep`. At this point, `typePreservingStep` is unused.
Finally, because of the way `smallstep` is used in `step` (inside
`StepSummary`), `nodeTo` must always be a `LocalSourceNode`, so I have
propagated this restriction to `smallstep` as well. We can always lift
this restriction later, but for now it seems like it's likely to cause
fewer surprises to have made this explicit.
I added this predicate mostly because it was nice with an easy shortcut for it,
but also since I spotted the `CredentialsFunctionName` not checking agaisnt the
regexps in `notSensitive`, which looked suspicious. So the main goal of adding
`nameIndicatesSensitiveData` is that you don't accidentially forget to ensure
that the name doesn't match against `notSensitve`.
Initially I had called `nameIndicatesSensitiveData` for `maybeSensitiveName`,
which made the relationship with `maybeSensitive` and `notSensitive` quite
strange -- and therefore I added the more informative `maybeSensitiveRegexp` and
`notSensitiveRegexp`.
Although I'm no longer using `maybeSensitiveName`, and I no longer have a strong
argument for making this name change, I still like it. If someone thinks this is
a terrible idea, I'm happy to change it though 👍
