Add word boundaries around values in SQL tautologies (942130)

[allanrbo]

The intention of this rule appears to be to find situations such as 1=1, 123=123, 1!=2, 123!=321, 'hello' NOT LIKE 'world'. SQL expressions that will always evaluate to true - aka. tautologies.

However, I believe the rule had a flaw. For example it would match 11=1, 1=11, and fail to match 1!=11. I believe the reason is because the backreference \1 was given too much flexibility on what it could match. So for example given 11=1, when the regex engine arrives at the backreference, it seems to have the freedom to choose just any permutation of the referred capture group, so instead of choosing the whole 11, it can simply just choose 1. I think maybe the possessive quantifier ++ was an attempt to solve this problem, but it doesn't work. I believe a solution is lock down this freedom by explicitly forcing word boundaries around the capture group ([\d\w]+), so it becomes \b([\d\w]+)\b. Likewise around the \1 backreference.

The existing test case "1" sSOUNDS LIKE "SOUNDS LIKE 1 it appears to me just kind of passed by chance, because of the above described bug. It would match so \1 became SOUNDS, and then refer back to sSOUNDS but just choose the permutation of ignoring the first lower case s. Experiment here: https://regex101.com/r/hyI0Iv/1 .

This fix also has the side effect of solving the perf issue Airween brought up on the Slack channel a few days ago.

[allanrbo]

wow... just by chance realized that there actually used to be some \b word boundaries in the old CRS v2.2. Somehow it got removed during the switch to v3.0. See here. That one was only on one side of the values though (like \b([\d\w]++) rather than \b([\d\w]++)\b. Maybe it's enough only having it on one side - I am unsure. But it seems safer to have on both I think.

[dune73]

Wow. Well spotted.

There was a manual consolidation process by Ryan Barnett before we took over the project. It probably got dropped during that period.

[allanrbo]

Looked a bit more in the git history and realized that it wasn't removed from 2.2 to 3.0, but rather it was fixed in 2.2 after the 3.0 branching, and never ported to 3.x: 6a87ace

[dune73]

A most welcome PR then. :)

[dune73]

Also, this was very early in the 3.0 development. This makes me wonder, what else Ryan / we missed there. Ryan quit the project in Autumn 2015.

[franbuehler]

@franbuehler will review this PR.

[franbuehler]

Very well spotted, thanks for this PR @allanrbo !
I reviewed and tested this PR and it works as intended.
This PR is ready to be merged.