Conversation
a2921cb to
b885249
Compare
|
I'm not sure why the tests are failing, I can run the query on my machine and the tests pass. |
|
The tests run on a merge commit, and there have been changes on main since this PR. So I think we can resolve this by merging in |
|
I see it, ignore me |
|
Can you now reproduce the test failures locally? |
|
Note: When #11532 gets merged XssThroughDOM should be added to that test as well. |
adityasharad
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code changes look good. Assuming no other concerns from the team, I recommend merging this as is, so we don't accumulate conflicts with other PRs, and evaluating the combined state of main.
| @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ | |||
| /** | |||
| * For internal use only. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we just remove this comment now, so we don't forget later? Here and in the corresponding QLL file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment is present in all ATM-related .ql and .qll so probably best done in a separate PR given the churn. I'll open one.
|
Merging now, and will evaluate new |
This is a new version of #11204 based on top of the CodeQL refactoring, of which #11323 is the final PR.
@jhelie Because rebasing was too hard, I created this new version of your PR based on top of the new CodeQL framework. As I did this, though, I noticed that, as I understand it, there are more changes that need to be made when boosting a new query that are missing from your PR. Searching the repo for the substring
XssAtmI found changes that I think need to be made forXssThroughDOMin the following files:hasFlowFromSourcefrom the training data)The changes to the tests will also require changes to the
.expectedfiles, of course.