Implement most of Classes2, split out two harder rules

[MichaelRFairhurst]

Description

Implement Classes2 package, except for RULE-15-0-1 (which has tricky information missing from the database) and RULE-15-1-4 (which I haven't started yet but will take many hours).

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-13-1-1
  • RULE-13-3-1
  • RULE-14-1-1
  • RULE-15-0-2
  • RULE-15-1-3
  • RULE-16-5-1
  • RULE-16-6-1
• 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]

Pull Request Overview

This PR implements most of the Classes2 rule package by adding 6 new C++ MISRA rule queries, while moving 2 harder rules (RULE-15-0-1 and RULE-15-1-4) to Classes3 package. The implementation includes comprehensive test coverage and proper integration with the exclusion framework.

• Adds 6 new MISRA C++ 2023 rule implementations covering virtual inheritance, member specifiers, data member access levels, special member functions, conversion operators, and operator overloading
• Moves 2 complex rules to Classes3 package for future implementation
• Creates comprehensive test suites with both compliant and non-compliant examples for each rule

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 32 out of 32 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
rules.csv	Updates rule assignments, moving RULE-15-0-1 and RULE-15-1-4 to Classes3 package
rule_packages/cpp/Classes2.json	Defines metadata for 6 implemented MISRA rules in Classes2 package
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-*/test.cpp	Test files providing comprehensive coverage for each rule implementation
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-/.qlref	Reference files linking to query implementations
cpp/misra/test/rules/RULE-/.expected	Expected test results for validation
cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-/.ql	Query implementations for each MISRA rule
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/cpp/RuleMetadata.qll	Integration with exclusion framework
cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/exclusions/cpp/Classes2.qll	Auto-generated exclusion definitions for Classes2 package

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

cpp/misra/src/rules/RULE-14-1-1/PrivateAndPublicDataMembersMixed.ql:1

• Spelling error: 'maintanability' should be 'maintainability'.

/**

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[mbaluda]

Just a few comments below

[mbaluda]

Some cases are missing from the test case:

err = "should not be lvalue-qualified"
err = "should take rvalue reference to class or struct type"
err = "should return void or lvalue reference to class or struct type"
err = "should not be explicit"

[MichaelRFairhurst]

These are interesting.

err = "should not be lvalue-qualified"

I deleted this check with a comment. The only special member functions that should not be ref qualified are constructors, but constructors cannot be ref qualified.

should take rvalue reference to class or struct type

I left this in for completeness, but with a comment. This would only be reported for move ctors/move assignment operators, but those by definition take an rvalue reference. Interestingly, T(T) is not allowed, and while operator=(T) is allowed, it is a copy assignment operator, not a move assignment operator.

Added tests with comments. Happy to delete the case in the query predicate (with a comment) rather than leaving it in for completeness, if you have thoughts either way...

should return void or lvalue reference to class or struct type

Added!

should not be explicit

This is another case that isn't allowed by the compiler, added comments and a commented out test case.

[MichaelRFairhurst]

@mbaluda ready for re-review. Let me know your thoughts on the best way to handle the various impossible cases from 15-0-2.