Narrowly focused implementation of RULE 15-0-1 by MichaelRFairhurst · Pull Request #1121 · github/codeql-coding-standards

MichaelRFairhurst · 2026-04-29T18:16:20Z

Description

please enter the description of your change here

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-15-0-1
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!)

…ub.com:github/codeql-coding-standards into michaelrfairhurst/classes-3-take-2-rule-15-0-1

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds a new MISRA C++:2023 RULE-15-0-1 implementation (plus an audit companion query) to detect incorrectly provided special member functions, including packaging/metadata wiring and a dedicated test suite.

Changes:

Introduces ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctions.ql and ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctionsAudit.ql for RULE-15-0-1.
Adds helper library logic (AnalyzableClass.qll) to model special-member availability/customization.
Registers the new rule package in exclusions/metadata and adds comprehensive .qlref/.expected/C++ test fixtures.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
rule_packages/cpp/Classes3.json	Adds RULE-15-0-1 rule package entries (main + audit).
cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-15-0-1/ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctions.ql	Main RULE-15-0-1 query implementation and message logic.
cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-15-0-1/ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctionsAudit.ql	Audit query for “not analyzable” classes.
cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-15-0-1/AnalyzableClass.qll	Shared modeling of special member functions for analyzable classes.
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/cpp/RuleMetadata.qll	Wires the new Classes3 package into query metadata/exclusions.
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/cpp/Classes3.qll	New autogenerated metadata module for the Classes3 package.
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/test.cpp	New C++ test fixture covering compliant/non-compliant and audit cases.
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/*.qlref	Test references to the production queries.
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/*.expected	Expected results for both main and audit queries.

Copilot's findings

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (4)

cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/test.cpp:376

The audit .expected file reports an alert at this class, but the test source does not mark it // NON_COMPLIANT (or similar). Please add the appropriate NON_COMPLIANT annotation here or remove/update the corresponding row in ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctionsAudit.expected.

class UnmovableDerivedPublicVirtualDtor
    : public UnmovableBasePublicVirtualDtor {};

cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/test.cpp:403

The audit .expected file reports an alert at this class, but the test source does not mark it // NON_COMPLIANT (or similar). Please add the appropriate NON_COMPLIANT annotation here or remove/update the corresponding row in ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctionsAudit.expected.

class ProtectedDtorDerived : public BaseProtectedDtor {};

cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/test.cpp:416

The audit .expected file reports an alert at this class, but the test source does not mark it // NON_COMPLIANT (or similar). Please add the appropriate NON_COMPLIANT annotation here or remove/update the corresponding row in ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctionsAudit.expected.

class VirtualProtectedDtorDerived : public BaseVirtualProtectedDtor {};

cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/test.cpp:390

The audit .expected file reports an alert at this class, but the test source does not mark it // NON_COMPLIANT (or similar). Please add the appropriate NON_COMPLIANT annotation here or remove/update the corresponding row in ImproperlyProvidedSpecialMemberFunctionsAudit.expected.

class UnmovablePrivateVirtualDtorDerived : public UnmovablePrivateVirtualDtor {
};

Files reviewed: 11/11 changed files
Comments generated: 9

Copilot · 2026-04-30T08:35:21Z

+Constructor getMoveConstructor(Class c) {
+  if
+    not exists(MoveConstructor mc | mc = c.getAConstructor() and isUserDeclared(mc)) and
+    implicitMoveIsSuppressed(c)
+  then result = c.getAConstructor().(CopyConstructor)
+  else result = c.getAConstructor().(MoveConstructor)
+}
+
+Operator getMoveAssign(Class c) {
+  if
+    not exists(MoveAssignmentOperator mc | mc = c.getAMemberFunction() and isUserDeclared(mc)) and
+    implicitMoveIsSuppressed(c)
+  then result = c.getAMemberFunction().(CopyAssignmentOperator)
+  else result = c.getAMemberFunction().(MoveAssignmentOperator)
+}


getMoveConstructor and getMoveAssign are public predicates/functions in a library file but have no QLDoc. Either make them private if they are internal helpers, or add QLDoc documenting their behavior and parameters.

I think it's a good idea to add a motivating example to the QLDoc, respectively.

class OnlyCopyCtor { public: OnlyCopyCtor(const OnlyCopyCtor &) = default; }; static_assert(std::is_copy_constructible_v<OnlyCopyCtor>); // Succeeds static_assert(std::is_move_constructible_v<OnlyCopyCtor>); // Also succeeds

class OnlyCopyAssign { public: OnlyCopyAssign& operator=(const OnlyCopyAssign &) = default; }; static_assert(std::is_copy_assignable_v<OnlyCopyAssign>); // Succeeds static_assert(std::is_move_assignable_v<OnlyCopyAssign>); // Also succeeds

Nice suggestion, done!

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T17:38:22Z

-                             CUSTOMIZED, CUSTOMIZED, CUSTOMIZED, CUSTOMIZED)
+  COPY_CTOR(CopyAssignableCustomizedDtorCompliant1) CUSTOMIZED;
+  MOVE_CTOR(CopyAssignableCustomizedDtorCompliant1) CUSTOMIZED;
+  // No move constructor declared


This can now be deleted.

(I mean the line 290.)

Oops, I deleted the whole class!

But I think that's ok, it's covered by:

class CustomizedCtorsCompliant { // COMPLIANT: copy-enabled (1) public: DEFINE_ALL_SPECIAL_MEMBERS(CustomizedCtorsCompliant, CUSTOMIZED, CUSTOMIZED, DELETED, DELETED, CUSTOMIZED) };

(both are customized constructors, deleted assignments, and customized dtor)

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T21:16:42Z

+ * Holds if the implicit move constructor or move assignment operator of the class `c` will not be
+ * declared.
+ *
+ * See [class.copy]/8 and [class.copy]


Suggested change

* See [class.copy]/8 and [class.copy]

* See [class.copy.ctor]/8 and [class.copy]

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T21:17:37Z

+  or
+  isUserDeclared(c.getAMemberFunction().(CopyAssignmentOperator))
+  or
+  isUserDeclared(c.getDestructor())


It may be missing a branch.

Suggested change

isUserDeclared(c.getDestructor())

isUserDeclared(c.getDestructor())

or

isUserDeclared(c.getAMemberFunction().(MoveAssignmentOperator))

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T21:27:55Z

+private predicate undeclaredMoveException(AnalyzableClass c) {
+  // A copy-enabled class may have an undeclared move constructor.
+  isCopyEnabled(c) and
+  not c.moveAssignable() and


Why is this condition needed?

This (and the next comment) are attempting to check if the class is copy-assignable vs copy-enabled.

If a class is copyEnabled, we can check for the existence of either assignment operator to distinguish copy-enabled from copy-assignable, because a copy-assignable class will have both and a copy-enabled class will have neither.

It took me too long to remember that that's why I wrote it. I'll write a helper predicate that makes this clearer.

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T21:28:32Z

+  or
+  // A copy-assignable class may leave both move operations undeclared.
+  isCopyEnabled(c) and
+  c.moveAssignable() and


Shouldn't this be c.copyAssignable() instead?

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T21:34:13Z

+private predicate undeclaredMoveException(AnalyzableClass c) {
+  // A copy-enabled class may have an undeclared move constructor.
+  isCopyEnabled(c) and
+  not c.moveAssignable() and
+  not c.declaresMoveConstructor()
+  or
+  // A copy-assignable class may leave both move operations undeclared.
+  isCopyEnabled(c) and
+  c.moveAssignable() and
+  not c.declaresMoveConstructor() and
+  not c.declaresMoveAssignmentOperator()
+}
+
+predicate violatesCustomizedDestructorRequirements(AnalyzableClass c, string reason) {
+  c.isCustomized(TDestructor()) and
+  (
+    c.moveConstructible() and
+    not c.isCustomized(TMoveConstructor()) and
+    not undeclaredMoveException(c) and
+    reason = "has customized the destructor, but does not customize the move constructor."
+    or
+    c.moveAssignable() and
+    not undeclaredMoveException(c) and
+    not c.isCustomized(TMoveAssignmentOperator()) and
+    reason = "has customized the destructor, but does not customize the move assignment operator."
+    or
+    c.copyConstructible() and
+    not c.isCustomized(TCopyConstructor()) and
+    reason = "has customized the destructor, but does not customize the copy constructor."
+    or
+    c.copyAssignable() and
+    not c.isCustomized(TCopyAssignmentOperator()) and
+    reason = "has customized the destructor, but does not customize the copy assignment operator."
+  )
+}


It was a bit hard for me to follow the logic of this requirement check. Since these come in the form of

isCopyEnabled(class) -> {some_condition}

wouldn't it be simpler to check it using by taking the negation of the above?

isCopyEnabled(class) and ~{some_condition}

For example, the last requirement translates to

c.copyAssignable() implies ( c.isCustomized(TCopyAssignmentOperator()) and ( c.isCustomized(TMoveConstructor()) and c.isCustomized(TMoveAssignmentOperator()) or not isUserDeclared(getMoveConstructor(c)) and not isUserDeclared(getMoveAssign(c)) ) )

So the check becomes:

c.copyAssignable() and not ( c.isCustomized(TCopyAssignmentOperator()) and ( c.isCustomized(TMoveConstructor()) and c.isCustomized(TMoveAssignmentOperator()) or not isUserDeclared(getMoveConstructor(c)) and not isUserDeclared(getMoveAssign(c)) ) )

Rewriting above gives an arguably more readable version:

c.copyAssignable() and ( /* 1. The copy assignment operator is not customized. */ not c.isCustomized(TCopyAssignmentOperator()) or ( /* 2. Any one (or both) of the move operations is not customized. */ not c.isCustomized(TMoveConstructor() or not c.isCustomized(TMoveAssignmentOperator()) and /* 3. Any one (or both) of the move operations are user-declared. */ (isUserDeclared(getMoveConstructor(c)) or isUserDeclared(getMoveAssign(c))) ) )

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T21:47:39Z

 };

-class CopyEnabledCustomizedDtorCompliant2 { // NON-COMPLIANT: copy-enabled (2)
+class CopyEnabledCustomizedDtorCompliant2 { // COMPLIANT: copy-enabled (2)


Thanks for correcting the labels! Phew!

jeongsoolee09 · 2026-04-30T21:48:49Z

+  COPY_CTOR(TrivialClass) = default;
+};
+
+class NonTrivialClass { // NON_COMPLIANT - audit result


Would there be value to adding a variety of this class that has a copy constructor?

class NonTrivialClass { int x; int y; public: COPY_CTOR(TrivialClass) = default; ~NonTrivialClass() { x = 1; } };

jeongsoolee09

Some thoughts, overall looks amazing!! Thank you so much for tackling this to an already great extent!

MichaelRFairhurst added 3 commits April 29, 2026 11:16

First round tests

a31cf70

First implementation

ba6c2ca

All tests passing for main query

a31aac3

MichaelRFairhurst changed the title ~~First round tests~~ Narrowly focused implementation of RULE 15-0-1 Apr 29, 2026

MichaelRFairhurst and others added 12 commits April 29, 2026 14:43

Implement audit query

057e33b

Add some cases

3584a15

Use correct audit tag

d37827a

Just omit functions by hand that's supposed to not be declared

5000f27

Merge branch 'michaelrfairhurst/classes-3-take-2-rule-15-0-1' of gith…

184da86

…ub.com:github/codeql-coding-standards into michaelrfairhurst/classes-3-take-2-rule-15-0-1

Fix RuleMetadata.qll (package from a different rule/branch)

e63c088

clang format

658571a

Change the label of a case and break it down

6e9dde1

Merge branch 'michaelrfairhurst/classes-3-take-2-rule-15-0-1' of gith…

d04d4df

…ub.com:github/codeql-coding-standards into michaelrfairhurst/classes-3-take-2-rule-15-0-1

Some formatting, make copy-enabled class no longer copy-assignable

96e2ed0

Handle suppressed move operations

ce43802

Updates to expected file

a1c1a9e

MichaelRFairhurst marked this pull request as ready for review April 30, 2026 08:28

MichaelRFairhurst requested review from Copilot and jeongsoolee09 April 30, 2026 08:28

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of MichaelRFairhurst April 30, 2026 08:29 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

jeongsoolee09 reviewed Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-15-0-1/test.cpp Outdated

mbaluda self-requested a review April 30, 2026 18:20

MichaelRFairhurst added 2 commits April 30, 2026 13:57

Address feedback

2813136

Give code examples for when copy operations masquerade as moves.

51985b9

jeongsoolee09 reviewed Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

jeongsoolee09 requested changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

	* See [class.copy]/8 and [class.copy]
	* See [class.copy.ctor]/8 and [class.copy]

Conversation

MichaelRFairhurst commented Apr 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Change request type

Rules with added or modified queries

Release change checklist

Query development review checklist

Author

Reviewer

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Copilot's findings

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 30, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jeongsoolee09 Apr 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jeongsoolee09 Apr 30, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jeongsoolee09 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

MichaelRFairhurst commented Apr 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jeongsoolee09 Apr 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading

jeongsoolee09 Apr 30, 2026 •

edited

Loading