Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proof terms for LTL Checker #194

Closed
symbiont-daniel-gustafsson opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #217
Closed

Proof terms for LTL Checker #194

symbiont-daniel-gustafsson opened this issue Mar 30, 2021 · 0 comments · Fixed by #217
Milestone

Comments

@symbiont-daniel-gustafsson
Copy link
Contributor

Currently the LTL checker just returns a Bool so we don't get any more information other than that the check worked or not. It would be good to have a reason for why a check failed, for example if you have always P it would be good to know at what logical time P failed if the whole formula failed.

A general idea is to move all the negation to the atoms, and for the atoms could give a reason for why the predicate failed. This is something similar to what we did in quickcheck-statemachine https://github.com/advancedtelematic/quickcheck-state-machine/blob/2515c206c5ce6795d01930027edfe69b19a66c8e/src/Test/StateMachine/Logic.hs#L103

@symbiont-stevan-andjelkovic symbiont-stevan-andjelkovic added this to the beta milestone Mar 31, 2021
symbiont-daniel-gustafsson added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 9, 2021
This would give us better error messages in some cases.

fixes #194
symbiont-daniel-gustafsson added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 12, 2021
This would give us better error messages in some cases.

fixes #194
symbiont-daniel-gustafsson added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 12, 2021
This would give us better error messages in some cases.

fixes #194
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants