Skip to content

Implement missing amendment for directive 4-11 from misra C 2012 amendment 3 #878

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Conversation

MichaelRFairhurst
Copy link
Contributor

@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst commented Mar 27, 2025

Description

Almost missed this amendment as it was marked blocked in the spreadsheet.

Change request type

  • Release or process automation (GitHub workflows, internal scripts)
  • Internal documentation
  • External documentation
  • Query files (.ql, .qll, .qls or unit tests)
  • External scripts (analysis report or other code shipped as part of a release)

Rules with added or modified queries

  • No rules added
  • Queries have been added for the following rules:
    • DIR-4-11
  • Queries have been modified for the following rules:
    • rule number here

Release change checklist

A change note (development_handbook.md#change-notes) is required for any pull request which modifies:

  • The structure or layout of the release artifacts.
  • The evaluation performance (memory, execution time) of an existing query.
  • The results of an existing query in any circumstance.

If you are only adding new rule queries, a change note is not required.

Author: Is a change note required?

  • Yes
  • No

🚨🚨🚨
Reviewer: Confirm that format of shared queries (not the .qll file, the
.ql file that imports it) is valid by running them within VS Code.

  • Confirmed

Reviewer: Confirm that either a change note is not required or the change note is required and has been added.

  • Confirmed

Query development review checklist

For PRs that add new queries or modify existing queries, the following checklist should be completed by both the author and reviewer:

Author

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

Reviewer

  • Have all the relevant rule package description files been checked in?
  • Have you verified that the metadata properties of each new query is set appropriately?
  • Do all the unit tests contain both "COMPLIANT" and "NON_COMPLIANT" cases?
  • Are the alert messages properly formatted and consistent with the style guide?
  • Have you run the queries on OpenPilot and verified that the performance and results are acceptable?
    As a rule of thumb, predicates specific to the query should take no more than 1 minute, and for simple queries be under 10 seconds. If this is not the case, this should be highlighted and agreed in the code review process.
  • Does the query have an appropriate level of in-query comments/documentation?
  • Have you considered/identified possible edge cases?
  • Does the query not reinvent features in the standard library?
  • Can the query be simplified further (not golfed!)

@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 27, 2025 08:42
Copy link
Contributor

@Copilot Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This PR implements the missing amendment for directive 4-11 as specified in MISRA C 2012 amendment 3 by adding a new query.

  • Added a change note for the new query validating low precision periodic trigonometric function calls.
  • Updates the change notes file with details on the query's detection logic for 32-bit and 64-bit floating point types.
Files not reviewed (7)
  • amendments.csv: Language not supported
  • c/misra/src/rules/DIR-4-11/LowPrecisionPeriodicTrigonometricFunctionCall.ql: Language not supported
  • c/misra/test/rules/DIR-4-11/LowPrecisionPeriodicTrigonometricFunctionCall.expected: Language not supported
  • c/misra/test/rules/DIR-4-11/LowPrecisionPeriodicTrigonometricFunctionCall.qlref: Language not supported
  • c/misra/test/rules/DIR-4-11/test.c: Language not supported
  • cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/c/Contracts.qll: Language not supported
  • rule_packages/c/Contracts.json: Language not supported

Tip: Copilot only keeps its highest confidence comments to reduce noise and keep you focused. Learn more

@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 31, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit eedca61 Mar 31, 2025
25 checks passed
@MichaelRFairhurst MichaelRFairhurst deleted the michaelrfairhurst/implement-missing-sin-precision-amendment branch March 31, 2025 23:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants