Fix: Adds exclusion check in IncludeGuardsNotUsed

[mbaluda]

Description

Fix the problems predicate in IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll that did not include an exclusion check (isExcluded).

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:
  • DIR-4-10
  • M16-2-3
  • RULE-19-2-1

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]

Copilot review overview

🟡 Changes recommended

The result-changing behavior needs a change note and dedicated test coverage.

Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.

Review tier: Balanced
Findings: 1

New issues introduced by this change (1)

Severity	Finding
	cpp/​common/​src/​codingstandards/​cpp/​rules/​includeguardsnotused/​IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll — The newly introduced exclusion behavior is not exercised by the existing C or C++ include-guard…

What changed in this PR

Adds exclusion handling to shared C/C++ include-guard queries.

Changes:

• Suppresses findings for excluded header files.
• Missing required change note and exclusion-specific tests.
• VS Code/OpenPilot validation remains unconfirmed.

File	Description
IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll	Adds the exclusion check to problems.

Suppressed comments (1)

cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/includeguardsnotused/IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll:27

• This new exclusion changes the results of existing shared queries by suppressing alerts. The repository policy in docs/development_handbook.md:469-475 therefore requires a dated change note, but this PR does not add one and marks it as unnecessary. Please add a user-facing change note covering the affected include-guard queries.

  not isExcluded(file, getQuery()) and

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[Copilot]

@mbaluda I've opened a new pull request, #1195, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🔵 Needs a closer look

The shared C query path lacks equivalent exclusion regression coverage.

Review tier: Balanced
Findings: None

Issues resolved since last review (1)

Severity	Finding
	cpp/​common/​src/​codingstandards/​cpp/​rules/​includeguardsnotused/​IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll — The newly introduced exclusion behavior is not exercised by the existing C or C++ include-guard… View resolved comment

Suppressed comments (1)

cpp/common/src/codingstandards/cpp/rules/includeguardsnotused/IncludeGuardsNotUsed.qll:27

• This shared predicate also powers the C DIR-4-10 query, but only the C++ suite adds an exclusion fixture. The C suite at c/common/test/rules/includeguardsnotused still has no excluded header/configuration, so this behavior is not covered for that query. Add the equivalent excluded and non-excluded cases there and update its expected output.

  not isExcluded(file, getQuery()) and