[MathiasVP]

Description

github/codeql#23116 fixes a conflation problem when picking which dataflow node should satisfy node.asExpr() after returning from a constructor call. This results in some regressions on Coding Standards queries on the next branch that will be fixed after a subsequent PR I'm opening soon on the CodeQL repo.

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:
  • 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]

🟡 Changes recommended

The updated baselines leave an accepted false positive unannotated and omit the required change note documenting affected queries and accepted regressions.

2 open issues

• Mark the accepted false positive at test.cpp:88 · New
• Add a change note for updated query baselines · New

What changed in this PR

This PR updates C++ Coding Standards test baselines to accept temporary regressions caused by the constructor-dataflow correction in github/codeql#23116. It changes expected results and test comments, not query implementations.

Changes:

• Records new false positives in stream handling, iterator capacity, and shared-pointer ownership checks.
• Removes expected findings for affected stream-positioning and smart-pointer cases.
• Marks known regressions in test comments pending an upstream follow-up fix.

File	Description
cpp/​common/​test/​rules/​stringnumberconversionmissingerrorcheck/​test.cpp	Annotates four known false positives.
cpp/​common/​test/​rules/​stringnumberconversionmissingerrorcheck/​StringNumberConversionMissingErrorCheck.expected	Adds four expected conversion-check alerts.
cpp/​common/​test/​rules/​ownedpointervaluestoredinunrelatedsmartpointer/​test.cpp	Marks a smart-pointer finding as missing.
cpp/​common/​test/​rules/​ownedpointervaluestoredinunrelatedsmartpointer/​OwnedPointerValueStoredInUnrelatedSmartPointer.expected	Removes affected findings and path data.
cpp/​common/​test/​rules/​iofstreammissingpositioning/​test.cpp	Marks seven positioning findings as missing.
cpp/​common/​test/​rules/​iofstreammissingpositioning/​IOFstreamMissingPositioning.expected	Removes seven expected positioning alerts.
cpp/​cert/​test/​rules/​FIO51-CPP/​test.cpp	Annotates three file-closure false positives.
cpp/​cert/​test/​rules/​FIO51-CPP/​CloseFilesWhenTheyAreNoLongerNeeded.expected	Adds alerts and shifts related locations to constructors.
cpp/​cert/​test/​rules/​CTR52-CPP/​test.cpp	Annotates two iterator-capacity false positives.
cpp/​cert/​test/​rules/​CTR52-CPP/​GuaranteeGenericCppLibraryFunctionsDoNotOverflow.expected	Adds two expected iterator-capacity alerts.
cpp/​autosar/​test/​rules/​A20-8-4/​test.cpp	Annotates a shared-ownership false positive.
cpp/​autosar/​test/​rules/​A20-8-4/​SharedPointerUsedWithNoOwnershipSharing.expected	Adds the expected shared-ownership alert.

_{Review effort: Balanced (dynamic)}