False negative: DoubleCheckedLocking.ql cannot detect scenarios with ternary expressions.

从 java/Likely Bugs/Concurrency/DoubleCheckedLocking.ql 开始，并复现 issue 中的两个 Java 代码片段，以比较查询结果。当查询报告基于三元运算符的不安全 double-checked locking 场景，同时继续报告现有的直接模式时，即表示完成。

Version
codeql 2.23.9
Description of the issue
When I detect the code like this using java/Likely Bugs/Concurrency/DoubleCheckedLocking.ql, the problem is reported normally:

public class PosCase1 {
    private Object instance; // Non-volatile field
    public Object getInstance() {
        if (instance == null) { // First null check
            synchronized (this) { // [REPORTED LINE]
                if (instance == null) { // Second null check inside synchronized block
                    instance = new Object(); // Initialization
                }
            }
        }
        return instance; // Return after double-checked locking
    }
}

However, when ternary expressions are introduced into the code, DoubleCheckedLocking.ql fails to detect the problem:

public class PosCase1_Var1 {
    private Object instance; // Non-volatile field
    public Object getInstance() {
        // Use ternary for outer check, but preserve unsafe pattern
        return (instance != null) ? instance : createInstance();
    }
    private Object createInstance() {
        synchronized (this) {
            if (instance == null) {
                instance = new Object();
            }
            return instance;
        }
    }
}

These two code snippets are semantically identical, only using a ternary expression with some transformations, which is why DoubleCheckedLocking.ql cannot detect the problem.