You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I don't think there's a correctness issue with AppendEntries, but I think there's a simple way to make verification (by proof) easier. In particular, it would be useful to add a check to this line to test if prevLogIndex <= Len(log[i]). I believe that this check is unnecessary, but verifying this adds substantial complexity to the type invariant for the system. Is there any downside to adding the check?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I suspect this isn't the only change you'll want to make verification easier. Want to just accumulate them locally or in a fork for now?
As to this particular change, I'd expect to see the invariant 1 <= nextIndex[i][*] <= Len(log[i]) + 1 somewhere. I don't think you'll be able to avoid that, right? Perhaps other parts of the spec don't do enough to enforce that (the spec might well be buggy).
I don't think there's a correctness issue with AppendEntries, but I think there's a simple way to make verification (by proof) easier. In particular, it would be useful to add a check to this line to test if
prevLogIndex <= Len(log[i])
. I believe that this check is unnecessary, but verifying this adds substantial complexity to the type invariant for the system. Is there any downside to adding the check?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: