Commit d182eae
committed
Python: Add consistency check for PhaseDependentFlow
This would have found the problem in
#15755.
As highlighted in the comment in the code, it's not a perfect solution
since we don't have an automatic way to ensure we don't introduce a new
PhaseDependentFlow use with a new step relation and forget to add it to
this consistency check... but I think this consistency check still adds
value!1 parent 664dac6 commit d182eae
1 file changed
Lines changed: 21 additions & 0 deletions
Lines changed: 21 additions & 0 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ | |||
| 1 | + private import python | ||
| 2 | + private import semmle.python.dataflow.new.DataFlow::DataFlow | ||
| 3 | + private import semmle.python.dataflow.new.internal.DataFlowPrivate as DataFlowPrivate | ||
| 4 | + private import semmle.python.dataflow.new.internal.VariableCapture as VariableCapture | ||
| 5 | + | ||
| 6 | + from Node node | ||
| 7 | + where | ||
| 8 | + not exists(node.getScope()) and | ||
| 9 | + exists(Node nodeFrom, Node nodeTo | node in [nodeFrom, nodeTo] | | ||
| 10 | + // the list of step relations used with PhaseDependentFlow has been compiled | ||
| 11 | + // manually, and there isn't really a good way to do so manually :| | ||
| 12 | + DataFlowPrivate::LocalFlow::definitionFlowStep(nodeFrom, nodeTo) | ||
| 13 | + or | ||
| 14 | + DataFlowPrivate::LocalFlow::expressionFlowStep(nodeFrom, nodeTo) | ||
| 15 | + or | ||
| 16 | + DataFlowPrivate::LocalFlow::useUseFlowStep(nodeFrom, nodeTo) | ||
| 17 | + or | ||
| 18 | + VariableCapture::valueStep(nodeFrom, nodeTo) | ||
| 19 | + ) | ||
| 20 | + select node, | ||
| 21 | + "Node being used in PhaseDependentFlow does not have result for .getScope(), so will not work properly (since division into run-time/import-time is based on .getScope result)" | ||
0 commit comments