Add analyzer detecting let! _ = ... .

[fkj]

This detects a pattern that makes it easy to accidentally introduce subtle security bugs.

[fkj]

Results of running on the Verify solution

64 occurrences detected, none of which were false positives.
Most occurrences were in test code or in the management API. Most occurrences were validation code which is the target of the analyzer.
Almost of the occurrences look like they could be fixed with minor rewrites.

[kasperhj]

This detects a pattern that makes it easy to accidentally introduce subtle security bugs.

It would be nice with an example where wildcard let! surmounts to a security bug. So beyond enforcing this rule, people could see why it is important to enforce.

[fkj]

This detects a pattern that makes it easy to accidentally introduce subtle security bugs.

It would be nice with an example where wildcard let! surmounts to a security bug. So beyond enforcing this rule, people could see why it is important to enforce.

Is the example in the positive test case not enough? I think it shows quite concisely that the pattern makes it possible to silently ignore a validation error.

[kasperhj]

It would be nice with an example where wildcard let! surmounts to a security bug. So beyond enforcing this rule, people could see why it is important to enforce.

Is the example in the positive test case not enough? I think it shows quite concisely that the pattern makes it possible to silently ignore a validation error.

I'm not sure I understand the example then. What is being ignored?

[fkj]

It would be nice with an example where wildcard let! surmounts to a security bug. So beyond enforcing this rule, people could see why it is important to enforce.

Is the example in the positive test case not enough? I think it shows quite concisely that the pattern makes it possible to silently ignore a validation error.

I'm not sure I understand the example then. What is being ignored?

That's because I used a bad example for this one... sorry!
Updated the example in 35b6244, added explanatory comments in 034192f and updates snapshots in d3fe1cc.

[kasperhj]

That's because I used a bad example for this one... sorry! Updated the example in 35b6244, added explanatory comments in 034192f and updates snapshots in d3fe1cc.

Ahh yes. return indeed makes sense. Sanity restored.