Files
codeql/python/ql/test/experimental/dataflow/coverage/argumentPassing.py
Rasmus Wriedt Larsen 9c275c177a Python: Implement call-graph with type-trackers
This commit is a squash of 80 other commits. While developing, things
changed majorly 2-3 times, and it just wasn't feasible to go back and
write a really nice commit history.

My apologies for this HUGE commit.

Also, later on this is where I solved merge conflicts after flow-summaries
PR was merged.

For your amusement, I've included the original commit messages below.

Python: Add proper argument/parameter positions

Python: Handle normal function calls

Python: Reduce dataflow-consistency warnings

Previously there was a lot of failures for `uniqueEnclosingCallable` and
`argHasPostUpdate`

Removing the override of `getEnclosingCallable` in ParameterNode is
probably the most controversial... although from my point of view it's a
change for the better, since we're able to provide data-flow
ParameterNodes for more of the AST parameter nodes.

Python: Adjust `dataflow/calls` test

Python: Implement `isParameterOf`/`argumentOf`/`OutNode`

This makes the tests under `dataflow/basic` work as well 👍

(initially I had these as separate commits, but it felt like it was too much noise)

Python: Accept fix for `dataflow/consistency`

Python: Changes to `coverage/argumentRoutingTest.ql`

Notice we gain a few new resolved arguments.

We loose out on stuff due to:

1. not handling `*` or `**` in either arguments/parameters (yet)
2. not handling special calls (yet)

Python: Small fix for `TestUtil/RoutingTest.qll`

Since the helper predicates do not depend on this, moved outside class.

Python: Accept changes to `dataflow/coverage/NormalDataflowTest.ql`

Most of this is due to:

- not handling any kinds of methods yet
- not handling `*` or `**`

Python: Small investigation of `test_deep_callgraph`

Python: Accept changes to `coverage/localFlow.ql`

I don't fully understand why the .expected file changed.

Since we still have the desired flow, I'm not going to worry too much
about it.

with this commit, the `dataflow/coverage` tests passes 👍

Python: Minor doc update

Python: Add staticmethod/classmethod to `dataflow/calls`

Python: Handle method calls on class instances

without trying to deal with any class inheritance, or
staticmethod/classmethod at all.

Notice that with this change, we only have a DataFlowCall for the calls
that we can actually resolve. I'm not 100% sure if we need to add a
`UnresolvedCall` subclass of `DataFlowCall` for MaD in the future, but
it should be easy to do.

I'm still unsure about the value of `classesCallGraph`, but have just
accepted the changes.

Python: Handle direct method calls `C.foo(C, arg0)`

Python: Handle `@staticmethod`

Python: Handle class method calls... but the code is shit

WIP todo

Rewrite method calls to be better

also fixed a problem with `self` being an argument to the `x.staticmethod()` call :|

Python: Add subclass tests

Python: Split `class_advanced` test

Python: Rewrite call-graph tests to be inline expectation (1/2)

This adds inline expectations, next commit will remove old annotations
code... but I thought it would be easier to review like this.

Minor fixup

Python: Add simple subclass support

Python: more precise subclass lookup

Still not 100% precise.. but it's better

New ambiguous

Python: Add test for `self.m()` and `cls.m()` calls

Python: Handle `self.m()` and `cls.m()` calls

Python: Add tests for `__init__` and `__new__`

Python: Handle class calls

Python: Fix `self` argument passing for class calls

Now field-flow tests also pass 💪 (although the crosstalk
fieldflow test changes were due to this specific commit)

I also copied much of the setup for pre/post update nodes from Ruby,
specifically having the abstract `PostUpdateNodeImpl` in DataFlowPrivate
seemed like a nice change.

Same for the setup with `TNode` definition having the specification
directly in the body, instead of a `NeedsSyntheticPostUpdateNode` class.

Python: Add new crosstalk test WIP

Maybe needs a bit of refactoring, and to see how it all behaves with points-to

Python: Add `super()` call-graph tests

Python: Refactor MethodCall char-pred

In anticipation of supporting `super(MyClass, self).foo()`, where the
`self` argument doesn't come from an AttrNode, but from the second
argument to super.

Without `pragma[inline]` the optimizer found a terrible join-order --
this won't guarantee a good join-order for the future, but for now it
was just so simple and could let me move on with life.

Python: Add basic `super()` support

I debated a little (with myself) whether I should really do
`superTracker`, but I thought "why not" and just rolled with it. I did
not confirm whether it was actually needed anywhere, that is if anyone
does `ref = super; ref().foo()` -- although I certainly doubt it's very
wide-spread.

Python: InlineCallGraphTest: Allow non-unique callable name in different files

Python: more MRO tests

Python: Add MRO approximation for `super()`

Although it's not 100% accurate, it seems to be on level with the one in
points-to.

Python: Remove some spurious targets for direct calls

removal of TODO from refactoring

remove TODOs class call support

Python: Add contrived subclass call example

Python: Remove more spurious call targets

NOTE: I initially forgot to use
`findFunctionAccordingToMroKnownStartingClass` instead of
`findFunctionAccordingToMro` for __init__ and __new__, and since I did
make that mistake myself, I wanted to add something to the test to
highlight this fact, and make it viewable by PR reviewer... this will be
fixed in the next commit.

Python: Proper fix for spurious __init__ targets

Python: Add call-graph example of class decorator

Python: Support decorated classes in new call-graph

Python: Add call-graph tests for `type(obj).meth()`

Python: support `type(obj).meth()`

Python: Add test for callable defined in function

Python: Add test for callable as argument

Current'y we don't find these with type-tracking, which is super
mysterious. I did check that we have proper flow from the arguments to
the parameters.

Python: Found problem for callable as argument :| MAJOR WIP

WIP commit

IT WORKS AGAIN (but terrible performance)

remove pragma[inline]

remove oops

Fix performance problem

I tried to optimize it even further, but I didn't end up achieving anything :|

Fix call-graph comparison

add comparison version with easy lookup

incomplete missing call-graph tests

unhandled tests

trying to replicate missing call-edge due to missing imports ... but it's hard

also seems to be problems with the inline-expectation-value that I used, seems like it has both missing/unexpected results with same value

Python: Add import-problem test

Python: Add shadowing problem

some cleanup of rewrite fix

a little more cleanup

Add consistency queries to call-graph tests

Python: Add post-update nodes for `self` in implicit `super()` uses

But we do need to discuss whether this is the right approach :O

Fix for field-flow tests

This came from more precise argument passing

Fixed results in type-tracking

Comes from better argument passing with super() and handling of
functions with decorators

fix of inline call graph tests

Fixup call annotation test

Many minor cleanups/fixes

NewNormalCall -> NormalCall

Python: Major restructuring + qldoc writing

Python: Accept changes from pre/post update node .toString changes

Python: Reduce `super` complexity !! WIP !!

Python: Only pass self-reference if in same enclosing-callable

Python: Add call-graph test with nested class

This was inspired by the ImpliesDataflow test that showed missing flow
for q_super, but at least for the call-graph, I'm not able to reproduce
this missing result :|

Python: Restrict `super()` to function defined directly on class

Python: Accept fixes to ImpliesDataflow

Python: Expand field-flow crosstalk tests
2022-11-22 14:46:29 +01:00

190 lines
3.9 KiB
Python

import sys
import os
import functools
sys.path.append(os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname((__file__))))
from testlib import expects
arg = "source"
arg1 = "source1"
arg2 = "source2"
arg3 = "source3"
arg4 = "source4"
arg5 = "source5"
arg6 = "source6"
arg7 = "source7"
def SINK_TEST(x, test):
if test(x):
print("OK")
else:
print("Unexpected flow", x)
def SINK(x, expected=arg):
SINK_TEST(x, test=lambda x: x == expected)
def SINK_F(x, unexpected=arg):
SINK_TEST(x, test=lambda x: x != unexpected)
SINK1 = functools.partial(SINK, expected=arg1)
SINK2 = functools.partial(SINK, expected=arg2)
SINK3 = functools.partial(SINK, expected=arg3)
SINK4 = functools.partial(SINK, expected=arg4)
SINK5 = functools.partial(SINK, expected=arg5)
SINK6 = functools.partial(SINK, expected=arg6)
SINK7 = functools.partial(SINK, expected=arg7)
def argument_passing(
a,
b,
/,
c,
d=arg4, #$ arg4 func=argument_passing
*,
e=arg5, #$ arg5 func=argument_passing
f,
**g,
):
SINK1(a)
SINK2(b)
SINK3(c)
SINK4(d)
SINK5(e)
SINK6(f)
try:
SINK7(g["g"])
except:
print("OK")
@expects(7)
def test_argument_passing1():
argument_passing(arg1, *(arg2, arg3, arg4), e=arg5, **{"f": arg6, "g": arg7}) #$ arg1 arg5 MISSING: arg2 arg3 arg4 arg6 arg7
@expects(7)
def test_argument_passing2():
argument_passing(arg1, arg2, arg3, f=arg6) #$ arg1 arg2 arg3 arg6
def with_pos_only(a, /, b):
SINK1(a)
SINK2(b)
@expects(6)
def test_pos_only():
with_pos_only(arg1, arg2) #$ arg1 arg2
with_pos_only(arg1, b=arg2) #$ arg1 arg2
with_pos_only(arg1, *(arg2,)) #$ arg1 MISSING: arg2
def with_multiple_kw_args(a, b, c):
SINK1(a)
SINK2(b)
SINK3(c)
@expects(12)
def test_multiple_kw_args():
with_multiple_kw_args(b=arg2, c=arg3, a=arg1) #$ arg1 arg2 arg3
with_multiple_kw_args(arg1, *(arg2,), arg3) #$ arg1 MISSING: arg2 arg3
with_multiple_kw_args(arg1, **{"c": arg3}, b=arg2) #$ arg1 arg2 MISSING: arg3
with_multiple_kw_args(**{"b": arg2}, **{"c": arg3}, **{"a": arg1}) #$ MISSING: arg1 arg2 arg3
def with_default_arguments(a=arg1, b=arg2, c=arg3): #$ arg1 arg2 arg3 func=with_default_arguments
SINK1(a)
SINK2(b)
SINK3(c)
@expects(12)
def test_default_arguments():
with_default_arguments()
with_default_arguments(arg1) #$ arg1
with_default_arguments(b=arg2) #$ arg2
with_default_arguments(**{"c": arg3}) #$ MISSING: arg3
# Nested constructor pattern
def grab_foo_bar_baz(foo, **kwargs):
SINK1(foo)
grab_bar_baz(**kwargs)
# It is not possible to pass `bar` into `kwargs`,
# since `bar` is a valid keyword argument.
def grab_bar_baz(bar, **kwargs):
SINK2(bar)
try:
SINK2_F(kwargs["bar"])
except:
print("OK")
grab_baz(**kwargs)
def grab_baz(baz):
SINK3(baz)
@expects(4)
def test_grab():
grab_foo_bar_baz(baz=arg3, bar=arg2, foo=arg1) #$ arg1 MISSING: arg2 func=grab_bar_baz arg3 func=grab_baz
# All combinations
def test_pos_pos():
def with_pos(a):
SINK1(a)
with_pos(arg1) #$ arg1 func=test_pos_pos.with_pos
def test_pos_pos_only():
def with_pos_only(a, /):
SINK1(a)
with_pos_only(arg1) #$ arg1 func=test_pos_pos_only.with_pos_only
def test_pos_star():
def with_star(*a):
if len(a) > 0:
SINK1(a[0])
with_star(arg1) #$ MISSING: arg1 func=test_pos_star.with_star
def test_pos_kw():
def with_kw(a=""):
SINK1(a)
with_kw(arg1) #$ arg1 func=test_pos_kw.with_kw
def test_kw_pos():
def with_pos(a):
SINK1(a)
with_pos(a=arg1) #$ arg1 func=test_kw_pos.with_pos
def test_kw_kw():
def with_kw(a=""):
SINK1(a)
with_kw(a=arg1) #$ arg1 func=test_kw_kw.with_kw
def test_kw_doublestar():
def with_doublestar(**a):
SINK1(a["a"])
with_doublestar(a=arg1) #$ MISSING: arg1 func=test_kw_doublestar.with_doublestar