QL: field only used in charPred #7598
Conversation
erik-krogh
force-pushed
the
fieldOnlyUsedInCharPred
branch
3 times, most recently
from
eadee88 to
cbd2a25
Compare
erik-krogh
force-pushed
the
fieldOnlyUsedInCharPred
branch
from
cbd2a25 to
708c18d
Compare
That code is fine. The field can just be deleted there, if we want. |
|
It's an instance of a harmless pattern that appears to also occur many other places: When a class wraps an IPA-injector, all the columns from the IPA case are added as fields, and it may well be that not all of those needs to be referenced in member predicates. |
|
We may want to exclude that pattern from this query. |
|
Results look better now. 👍 |
kaeluka
left a comment
kaeluka
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks good to me — but I've left two comments where I'm a bit uncertain.
javascript/ql/test/library-tests/TypeScript/LocalTypeResolution/tests.ql
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| private newtype TValueNumber = | ||
| TVariableValueNumber(VarDecl var) { variableAccessValueNumber(_, var) } or | ||
| TFieldValueNumber(VarDecl var) { fieldAccessValueNumber(_, var) } or | ||
| TFieldValueNumber(FieldDecl var) { fieldAccessValueNumber(_, var) } or |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think var instanceof FieldDecl was implied by fieldAccessValueNumber already. So this is just making the branch more readable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I was trying to make it clear when something is a FieldDecl and when something is a VarDecl.
There is a lot of drive-by "Make FieldDecl and it's uses better"-fixes in this PR.
kaeluka
left a comment
kaeluka
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changes to the javascript analyses look good to me! 👍
4 participants
Flags some bad style I recently encountered during a code-review.
I also went ahead and fixed all the alerts found in JS. (Except for this one, and the alerts in shared files).
Most of the time the fix is to somehow inline the field into the charpred.
But the right way to inline the field can vary a lot, so I'm not writing an automated patch for this.
I think that for some of the issues (e.g. this one) the problem is that the field should have been used somewhere.