Summary:
`infer help` will be used to display information about issue types and
checkers, and to generate the corresponding website documentation. We
can add more things in it over time. The goal is to avoid having to go
read the source code of infer to figure things out that are user-facing.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D21934376
fbshipit-source-id: 2788c5af1
Summary:
The checker names are only used in debug information but I need them to
be more useful so users can do queries about each checker. Turn them
into an "id" instead of a "name", with some constraints to avoid crazy
IDs. In the next diff these IDs will be used on the command lin.
Reviewed By: dulmarod
Differential Revision: D21934373
fbshipit-source-id: 847a4958d
Summary:
Add an extra argument everywhere we report about the identity of the
checker doing the reporting. This isn't type safe in any way, i.e. a
checker can masquerade as another. But, hopefully it's enough to ensure
checker writers (and diff reviewers) have a chance to reflect on what
issue type they are reporting.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D21638823
fbshipit-source-id: b4a4b0c0a
Summary:
Before: `RegisterCheckers` activates each checker based on a boolean
condition about which other checkers can enable it, eg for pulse:
```
(* registerCheckers.ml *)
active= Config.(is_checker_enabled Pulse || is_checker_enabled Impurity)
```
After: `Checker` declares for each checker the list of its dependencies,
eg for impurity:
```
(* Checker.ml *)
name= "impurity";
activates= [Pulse]
```
Now `Config` computes for each checker whether it was transitively
activated by other checkers or not. It saves us from having to encode
the logic from before everywhere we want to know "is checker X
running?"; this was prone to errors.
It will also allow us to display which checkers actually run to the user
more easily.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D21622198
fbshipit-source-id: 004931192
Summary:
The eventual goal is to document issue types and checkers better, in
particular which issue types "belong" to which checkers. (note:
Currently some issue types are reported by several checkers.)
The plan is to associate a list of "allowed" checkers to each issue type
and (not in this diff) raise a runtime exception if a checker not in
that list tries to report that issue. Hopefully tests cover all the use
cases and there are no surprises. I've filled in the lists by
`git grep`ing which checkers used which issue types in their code.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D21617622
fbshipit-source-id: 159ab171f
Summary:
This seems to make sense as it's a separate analysis (that depends on
biabduction). This introduces unpleasant `|| is_checker_enabled TOPL`
whenever we try to figure out if biabduction will run. I think this is a
more general problem that deserves a more general solution to express
the fact that checkers can depend on others, so that, eg,
`is_checker_enabled Purity` is true when we pass `--loop-hoisting`. Will
address in another diff.
Reviewed By: ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D21618460
fbshipit-source-id: 8b0c9a015
Summary:
Pulse is disabled by default anyway so it's safe to enabled it for Java
too.
Also noticed that OCaml is smart enough not to need `Language.` in
frontend of `Clang`/`Java` in all of registerCheckers.ml so delete
these.
Reviewed By: ezgicicek
Differential Revision: D21594364
fbshipit-source-id: 4b561c9a0
Summary:
This was never quite finished and inferbo has a new way to do sort of
the same thing.
Reviewed By: skcho, ngorogiannis
Differential Revision: D20362619
fbshipit-source-id: 7c7935d47
Summary:
The goals are to have all the checker definitions and documentation in one
place (except how to actually run them, since that's not quite the same
concept; for example inferbo is one checker but several analyses depend on its
symbolic execution), and later on to be able to link issues reported by infer
back to the checker that generated them.
This makes apparent that the documentation of our checkers is lacking,
not touching that in this diff.
Not sure if "analysis" would be a better name than "checker" at this
point? For instance "Linters" is one of the checkers, which historically
at least we have not considered to be the case.
Reviewed By: mityal
Differential Revision: D20252386
fbshipit-source-id: fc611bfb7
Jules Villard