GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — Join an if on the instances its condition read by CatarinaGamboa · Pull Request #408 · liquid-java/liquidjava Conversation
Collaborator
ProblemTwo failures in how 1. A reference comparison loses the then-branch state (missed error). Door d = new Door(); // open if (other == d) { d.close(); } d.close(); // passes, but d may already be closed The guard was the condition with variable names and with their instances ( 2. A call result in a nested if's condition leaves scope (internal error). Door d = new Door(); if (b) { if (current() == d) { ... } } d.close(); // Not Found Error: Variable '#fresh_11' could not be found The fresh variable for Fix
With the fix, case 1 reports Tests
Found on a real fixed bug (a game engine's window switching display modes, which compares the full-screen window with its frame inside an outer 🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactionsThe join's guard used the condition both with variable names and with
their instances. After the if, a name stands for its latest instance, so
`if (other == d) d.close(); d.close();` compared the joined d with the
old one, which made the closed branch impossible and the error was missed.
The guard now names only the instances the condition read.
Fresh values the condition creates (a call's result) are kept in the
context: inside another if's branch they left scope at the outer join
while the joined instances still used them ('Variable #fresh_N could not
be found').
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
rcosta358
approved these changes
CatarinaGamboa
commented
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This still leaves a soundness gap when a condition reads a variable that has no last instance (for example, a method parameter). // Door() establishes open(this); close() requires open(this) and establishes closed(this). void closeTwice(boolean b) { Door d = new Door(); if (b == true) d.close(); b = false; d.close(); // should be a State Refinement Error } I ran this on the PR head; LiquidJava says
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
CatarinaGamboa
commented
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The retention walk stops at a value already in @Refinement("_ == 1") static int one() { return 1; } @Refinement("_ == (n > 0)") static boolean positive(int n) { return n > 0; } void check(boolean b) { Door d = new Door(); // initially open if (b) { if (positive(one() + 1)) d.close(); } d.close(); // should be a State Refinement Error } On this head the second More broadly, this fix promotes block-local values into the method-wide instance list. Could we document the intended lifetime/scope invariant for values captured by a join and check that this approach fits it? Issue #406 describes the same kind of out-of-scope refinement dependency across
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactionsUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
1 task done
CatarinaGamboa
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
## Description #412, #413 and #414 were merged into their stacked base branches instead of `main`: once #411 was merged, their bases were never retargeted. Their code is only on `feat/state-hints-unknown`. This PR applies the three reviewed commits on top of `main`, unchanged: - Explain dead ends in failing state transitions (#412) - List the calls that reach an allowed state when the state is unknown (#413) - Build each class's state machine once per checker (#414) The hint and state machine files are identical to `feat/state-hints-unknown`. Rebase-merging keeps the three commits separate. ## Checklist - [x] `mvn test` passes locally on top of the current `main` (#408, #409) 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
ReviewersUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. AssigneesNo one assignedLabels
None yet
ProjectsMilestoneNo milestoneDevelopmentSuccessfully merging this pull request may close these issues. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up. Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required. |