No Use of "others" in Case Constructs (RPP01)

Level \(\rightarrow\) Required

Category

Safety:: \(\checkmark\)
Cyber:: \(\checkmark\)

Goal

Maintainability:: \(\checkmark\)
Reliability:: \(\checkmark\)
Portability:: \(\checkmark\)
Performance:
Security:

Remediation \(\rightarrow\) Low

Verification Method \(\rightarrow\) GNATcheck rule: OTHERS_In_CASE_Statements

Reference

[SEI-C] MSC01-C

Description

Case statement alternatives and case-expressions must not include use of the others discrete choice option. This rule prevents accidental coverage of a choice added after the initial case statement is written, when an explicit handler was intended for the addition.

Note that this is opposite to typical C guidelines such as [SEI-C] MSC01-C. The reason is that in C, the default alternative plays the role of defensive code to mitigate the switch statement's non-exhaustivity. In Ada, the case construct is exhaustive: the compiler statically verifies that for every possible value of the case expression there is a branch alternative, and there is also a dynamic check against invalid values which serves as implicit defensive code. As a result, Ada's others alternative doesn't play C's defensive code role and therefore a stronger guideline can be adopted.

Applicable Vulnerability within ISO TR 24772-2

6.27 Switch statements and static analysis [CLL]

Applicable Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-478 - Missing Default Case in Multiple Condition Expression

Noncompliant Code Example

   case Digit_T (C) is
      when '0' | '9' =>
         C := Character'succ (C);
      when others =>
         C := Character'pred (C);
   end case;

Compliant Code Example

   case Digit_T (C) is
      when '0' | '9' =>
         C := Character'succ (C);
      when '1' | '2' | '3' | '4' | '5' | '6' | '7' | '8' =>
         C := Character'pred (C);
   end case;

Notes

N/A