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

StratifiedRules: Set enumeration #2637

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 7, 2023
Merged

StratifiedRules: Set enumeration #2637

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 7, 2023

Conversation

Kukovec
Copy link
Collaborator

@Kukovec Kukovec commented Jul 6, 2023

  • Tests added for any new code
  • Ran make fmt-fix (or had formatting run automatically on all files edited)
  • Documentation added for any new functionality
  • Entries added to ./unreleased/ for any new functionality

closes #2636

@Kukovec Kukovec requested review from thpani and konnov July 6, 2023 13:37
@Kukovec Kukovec requested a review from rodrigo7491 as a code owner July 6, 2023 13:37
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jul 6, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #2637 (6909667) into main (5d09cd5) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 76.47%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2637      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.52%   78.51%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         451      452       +1     
  Lines       15705    15722      +17     
  Branches     2572     2552      -20     
==========================================
+ Hits        12332    12344      +12     
- Misses       3373     3378       +5     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...mt/stratifiedRules/set/SetCtorStratifiedRule.scala 73.33% <73.33%> (ø)
...e/tla/bmcmt/stratifiedRules/aux/RewriterImpl.scala 81.48% <100.00%> (+1.48%) ⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Copy link
Collaborator

@thpani thpani left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Comment on lines +37 to +40
setT match {
case SetT1(_) => ()
case _ => throw new TypingException("Expected a finite set, found: " + setT, ex.ID)
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need this extra check here?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Strictly speaking, no, but I'd like to keep the sanity check here. A fair few translation rules work on Untyped() expressions, if they just check syntax, this is one of the ones where this isn't the case.

@Kukovec Kukovec merged commit b24b9b0 into main Jul 7, 2023
@Kukovec Kukovec deleted the jk/stratifiedRules_setCtor branch July 7, 2023 11:26
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 this pull request may close these issues.

Stratified rules: Set constructor
3 participants