Add the rule ifFailureFree to the STS code #2679
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
JaredCorduan
force-pushed
the
ts-STS-failures
branch
from
980bb56
to
9c29d49
Compare
lehins
approved these changes
Mar 17, 2022
lehins
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2022
…e failure. In #2679 we got an implmentation of conditional execution. The intent was to prevent running some expensive predicate checks whenever there is already at least one existing predicate failure. That PR did not account for the fact that rules are executed in a recursive function and the state that carries information about predicate failures is not shared between each invocation. In other words, whenever one STS rule called another (eg. UTXOW calling UTXO), the invoked STS rules would be oblivious to previous failures.
lehins
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2022
…e failure. In #2679 we got an implmentation of conditional execution. The intent was to prevent running some expensive predicate checks whenever there is already at least one existing predicate failure. That PR did not account for the fact that rules are executed in a recursive function and the state that carries information about predicate failures is not shared between each invocation. In other words, whenever one STS rule called another (eg. UTXOW calling UTXO), the invoked STS rules would be oblivious to previous failures.
lehins
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2022
…e failure. In #2679 we got an implmentation of conditional execution. The intent was to prevent running some expensive predicate checks whenever there is already at least one existing predicate failure. That PR did not account for the fact that rules are executed in a recursive function and the state that carries information about predicate failures is not shared between each invocation. In other words, whenever one STS rule called another (eg. UTXOW calling UTXO), the invoked STS rules would be oblivious to previous failures.
teodanciu
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2022
…e failure. In #2679 we got an implmentation of conditional execution. The intent was to prevent running some expensive predicate checks whenever there is already at least one existing predicate failure. That PR did not account for the fact that rules are executed in a recursive function and the state that carries information about predicate failures is not shared between each invocation. In other words, whenever one STS rule called another (eg. UTXOW calling UTXO), the invoked STS rules would be oblivious to previous failures.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.