[feat] Hide disabled ClangSA checkers in post-processing

ClangSA checkers may rely on each other. For example unix.Malloc checker
may prevent a report from unix.MismatchedDeallocator. It is possible that
after disabling unix.Malloc the underlying analysis continues giving a
chance for unix.MismatchedDeallocator to emit a report.

In order to avoid this noisy behavior, ClangSA checkers are never
disabled during the analysis invocation. If CodeChecker wants to disable
a checker then its result should be hidden in a post-processing step.

analyzer/codechecker_analyzer/analyzers/clangsa/analyzer.py

@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 """
 
 import os
+import plistlib
 import re
 import shlex
 import subprocess
@@ -123,6 +124,7 @@ def __init__(self, cfg_handler, buildaction):
         super(ClangSA, self).__init__(cfg_handler, buildaction)
         self.__disable_ctu = False
         self.__checker_configs = []
+        self.__disabled_checkers = []
 
     @classmethod
     def analyzer_binary(cls):
@@ -305,6 +307,43 @@ def get_analyzer_config(cls) -> List[str]:
 
         return parse_clang_help_page(command, 'OPTIONS:')
 
+    def post_analyze(self, result_handler):
+        """
+        Disabled checkers are not actually disabled during analysis, because
+        they might rely on each other under the hood. The disabled checkers'
+        reports are removed in this post-processing step.
+        """
+        try:
+            if not os.path.isfile(result_handler.analyzer_result_file):
+                # This check has the same race-condition reason as the
+                # exception, so see its description below.
+                return
+
+            with open(result_handler.analyzer_result_file, 'rb') as f:
+                plist = plistlib.load(f)
+        except plistlib.InvalidFileException:
+            # It may happen that a compilation database contains a build action
+            # multiple times (because it is compiled for several target
+            # architectures), or at least they differ in a so minor part that
+            # the same .plist file belongs to them. (For further details see
+            # analyzer_action_str() in ResultHandler about the strange behavior
+            # of make 4.3 in its -o flag.)
+            # If this happens then the analysis of the same build action is
+            # analyzed in parallel several times, so the same output .plist
+            # file is changed by several threads. This may result an invalid
+            # .plist which fails plistlib.load(). This is not a big problem,
+            # because the second thread will also execute this post-processing
+            # and it happens rarely anyways. test_compile_uniqueing() fails
+            # undeterministically without this.
+            return
+
+        plist['diagnostics'] = list(filter(
+            lambda diag: diag['check_name'] not in self.__disabled_checkers,
+            plist.get('diagnostics', [])))
+
+        with open(result_handler.analyzer_result_file, 'wb') as f:
+            plistlib.dump(plist, f)
+
     def construct_analyzer_cmd(self, result_handler):
         """
         Called by the analyzer method.
@@ -356,23 +395,19 @@ def construct_analyzer_cmd(self, result_handler):
                     ['-Xclang', '-analyzer-config', '-Xclang', cfg])
 
             # Config handler stores which checkers are enabled or disabled.
-            disabled_checkers = []
+            self.__disabled_checkers = []
             enabled_checkers = []
             for checker_name, value in config.checks().items():
                 state, _ = value
                 if state == CheckerState.enabled:
                     enabled_checkers.append(checker_name)
                 elif state == CheckerState.disabled:
-                    disabled_checkers.append(checker_name)
+                    self.__disabled_checkers.append(checker_name)
 
             if enabled_checkers:
                 analyzer_cmd.extend(['-Xclang',
                                      '-analyzer-checker=' +
                                      ','.join(enabled_checkers)])
-            if disabled_checkers:
-                analyzer_cmd.extend(['-Xclang',
-                                     '-analyzer-disable-checker=' +
-                                     ','.join(disabled_checkers)])
             # Enable aggressive-binary-operation-simplification option.
             version_info = ClangSA.version_info()
             if version_info and version_info.major_version >= 8:

analyzer/codechecker_analyzer/analyzers/result_handler_base.py

@@ -114,9 +114,9 @@ def analyzer_action_str(self):
         # build command, because its hash is used for identification in the
         # plist file name.
         #
-        # TODO: This solution is considered a workaround, because the real
-        # question is why such a subprocess is logged? Can cc1build be always
-        # used as a traditional g++ command?
+        # The proper logging of this "make 4.3" version has been done in
+        # bf140d6, so it is unlikely happen that two build actions differ only
+        # in their "-o" flags. This workaround is still kept for any case.
         #
         # Note that some information loss occurs during the following algorithm
         # because ' '.join(shlex.split(cmd)) is not necessarily equal to cmd:

analyzer/tests/unit/test_checker_handling.py

@@ -111,15 +111,9 @@ def test_no_disabled_checks(self):
         """
         Test that ClangSA only uses enable lists.
         """
-        # TODO: This test is currently removed, because checkers that are not
-        # enabled are explicitly disabled. In a next commit ClangSA reports
-        # will be hidden instead of disabled. In that commit this test could be
-        # re-enabled.
-        pass
-
-        # self.assertFalse(
-        #     any(arg.startswith('-analyzer-disable-checker')
-        #         for arg in self.__class__.cmd))
+        self.assertFalse(
+            any(arg.startswith('-analyzer-disable-checker')
+                for arg in self.__class__.cmd))
 
     def test_checker_initializer(self):
         """

web/tests/functional/report_viewer_api/__init__.py

@@ -160,6 +160,11 @@ def setup_class_common(workspace_name):
     # -----------------------------------------------------
 
     # Let's run the third analysis.
+    codechecker_cfg['checkers'] = ['-e', 'core.CallAndMessage',
+                                   '-d', 'core.StackAddressEscape',
+                                   '-d', 'clang-diagnostic',
+                                   '-e', 'clang-diagnostic-division-by-zero'
+                                   ]
     ret = codechecker.check_and_store(codechecker_cfg,
                                       test_project_name_third,
                                       project.path(test_project))
@@ -183,6 +188,7 @@ def setup_class_common(workspace_name):
 
     # Let's run the second analysis and updat the same run.
     codechecker_cfg['checkers'] = ['-d', 'core.StackAddressEscape',
+                                   '-d', 'unix.Malloc',
                                    '-d', 'clang-diagnostic',
                                    '-e', 'clang-diagnostic-division-by-zero',
                                    '-e', 'clang-diagnostic-return-type']

web/tests/functional/report_viewer_api/test_report_counting.py

@@ -88,22 +88,21 @@ def setup_method(self, method):
              'core.NullDereference': 4,
              'cplusplus.NewDelete': 5,
              'deadcode.DeadStores': 6,
-             'misc-definitions-in-headers': 2,
-             'unix.MismatchedDeallocator': 1}
+             'misc-definitions-in-headers': 2}
 
         self.run1_sev_counts = {Severity.MEDIUM: 6,
                                 Severity.LOW: 6,
                                 Severity.HIGH: 32}
 
-        self.run2_sev_counts = {Severity.MEDIUM: 6,
+        self.run2_sev_counts = {Severity.MEDIUM: 5,
                                 Severity.LOW: 6,
                                 Severity.HIGH: 24}
 
         self.run1_detection_counts = \
             {DetectionStatus.NEW: 44}
 
         self.run2_detection_counts = \
-            {DetectionStatus.NEW: 36}
+            {DetectionStatus.NEW: 35}
 
         self.run1_files = \
             {'new_delete.cpp': 6,
@@ -125,7 +124,7 @@ def setup_method(self, method):
 
         self.run2_files = \
             {'call_and_message.cpp': 5,
-             'new_delete.cpp': 6,
+             'new_delete.cpp': 5,
              'divide_zero.cpp': 5,
              'divide_zero_duplicate.cpp': 2,
              'null_dereference.cpp': 5,

web/tests/functional/report_viewer_api/test_report_filter.py

@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ def test_run1_run2_all_results(self):
                                                              ReportFilter(),
                                                              None)
 
-        self.assertEqual(run_result_count, 80)
+        self.assertEqual(run_result_count, 79)
 
         run_results = self._cc_client.getRunResults(self._runids,
                                                     run_result_count,
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ def test_detection_date_filters(self):
     def test_fix_date_filters(self):
         """ Filter by fix dates. """
         report_filter = ReportFilter(
-            detectionStatus=[DetectionStatus.RESOLVED])
+            detectionStatus=[DetectionStatus.OFF])
         run_results = self._cc_client.getRunResults(None, None, 0,
                                                     None, report_filter, None,
                                                     False)