[question?] counterintuitive class method behaviour
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Domain
- documentation
Research direction
Start with the CodeQL query and output shown in the issue, then read the documentation covering class methods and predicate evaluation. Confirm the intended behavior and identify the relevant documentation section; done means the behavior is explained clearly enough to address the reported mental-model gap.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
When I write a query like this:
class Meow extends Struct {
Field f;
Meow() {
f.getDeclaringType() = this
}
Field getField() { result = f }
}
from Meow m
select m, m.getField(), m.getField()
My mental model of this is: "Meow is essentially a (struct, struct's field) tuple. from Meow m will select all of those tuples. For each of those , select m, m.getField(), m.getField() will print their contents."
But that is actually not what happens, because you get results like this:
| m | col1 | col2 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
// [snip]
| port_io_ops | f_inb | f_outb |
// [snip]
Which means that the first m.getField() and the second m.getField() are operating on different Meow objects.
I've been debugging a bug in my query for hours now only to realize that this is what happens. Is this really intended? I read through a non-trivial amount of documentation and did not realize this, I feel like my whole mental model of how codeql works is shattering :S
(If it is really intended, could the documentation be updated to point this out more clearly?)
- Dominant language
- CodeQL
- Stars
- 10.1k
- Forks
- 2.1k
- Avg merge
- 2d 16h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 143
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from github/codeql
-
agentic-workflows
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
-
false-positive javascript
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
-
C#: cs/simplifiable-boolean-expression false positive on Nullable<bool> compared with a literal Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
-
false-positive
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 70/100
Similar issues
-
triage
Difficulty 1/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
-
enhancement
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
feature pydanty:is-working
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 88/100
pydantic/pydantic-ai#8647 ·
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
-
:watch: Not Triaged dotnet-fsharp/svc
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100