Skip to content

Fix typo in the alert message of InvalidatedEnvStringPointers.qll #943

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 18, 2025

Conversation

jketema
Copy link
Collaborator

@jketema jketema commented Aug 15, 2025

Description

Fixed the spelling of "subsequent" in the alert message of InvalidatedEnvStringPointers.qll. Also fix the spelling of "after" in a code comment.

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:
    • rule number here
  • Queries have been modified for the following rules:
    • ENV34-C
    • RULE-21-20
    • RULE-25-5-3

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!)

@jketema jketema marked this pull request as ready for review August 15, 2025 16:47
@Copilot Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings August 15, 2025 16:47
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 fixes spelling errors in the InvalidatedEnvStringPointers.qll file and updates corresponding test expectations. The main change corrects "susequent" to "subsequent" in alert messages and "afer" to "after" in a code comment.

  • Fixed spelling of "subsequent" in alert message
  • Fixed spelling of "after" in code comment
  • Updated test expected outputs to reflect the corrected spelling

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/invalidatedenvstringpointers/InvalidatedEnvStringPointers.qll Fixed spelling errors in alert message and code comment
cpp/common/test/rules/invalidatedenvstringpointers/InvalidatedEnvStringPointers.expected Updated expected test outputs with corrected spelling
c/common/test/rules/invalidatedenvstringpointers/InvalidatedEnvStringPointers.expected Updated expected test outputs with corrected spelling
change_notes/2025-08-15-typo-in-alert-message.md Added change note documenting the spelling fix

Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.
You can also share your feedback on Copilot code review for a chance to win a $100 gift card. Take the survey.

Copy link
Contributor

@jeongsoolee09 jeongsoolee09 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you!

@jeongsoolee09 jeongsoolee09 added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 18, 2025
Merged via the queue into github:main with commit 0f7154e Aug 18, 2025
21 checks passed
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