Skip to content

Niv/fix sanity failure #183

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: cli-beta
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

nivcertora
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@nivcertora nivcertora requested a review from liav-certora July 6, 2025 09:49
@nivcertora nivcertora self-assigned this Jul 6, 2025
@nivcertora nivcertora changed the base branch from master to cli-beta July 6, 2025 09:49
@nivcertora nivcertora requested review from nd-certora and yoav-el-certora and removed request for liav-certora July 6, 2025 10:44
@yoav-el-certora yoav-el-certora requested a review from johspaeth July 7, 2025 08:32
Copy link
Contributor

@johspaeth johspaeth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Minor nits and questions - looks ok for me.

Comment on lines +23 to +25
// invariant version is getting SANITY_FAILURE using the below rule instead
// invariant lockStatusDontChange()
// !contract_lock_status;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Which sanity failure did you receive on this invariant?

I couldn't find a link to a failing job here:
https://certora.atlassian.net/browse/CERT-9252

@@ -129,12 +129,6 @@ hook Sstore _customers[KEY address user].accounts.length uint256 newLength {
numOfAccounts[user] = newLength;
}

/**
An internal step check to verify that our ghost works as expected, it should mirror the number of accounts.
Once the sload is defined, this invariant becomes a tautology
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Once the sload is defined, this invariant becomes a tautology

Is sload now defined nowadays, so is this why we see the sanity failure for trivial post condition of the invariant?

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.

2 participants