Generate contracts of dependencies as assertions #3802
Merged
+612
−67
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
carolynzech
commented
Jan 2, 2025
zhassan-aws
reviewed
Jan 2, 2025
tests/expected/function-contract/as-assertions/assert-postconditions.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
celinval
reviewed
Jan 2, 2025
carolynzech
commented
Jan 2, 2025
tests/expected/function-contract/as-assertions/assert-postconditions.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
carolynzech
commented
Jan 2, 2025
tests/expected/function-contract/as-assertions/assert-preconditions.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
carolynzech
commented
Jan 7, 2025
carolynzech
commented
Jan 7, 2025
carolynzech
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add an unstable option
-Zcontracts-as-assertionsthat generates contract clauses as assertions. This works by adding a new contract mode that outputs the original body of the function with its contract clauses asserted. During theFunctionWithContractPass, if this option was passed, we use this closure instead of the original body of the function.I'm omitting a description of why this is useful from the PR description--there's one in the module documentation, and I want that to be a self-contained explanation (i.e., if something is unclear, I want to fix it there).
(Also did a minor bit of cleanup, renaming
ClosureTypetoContractModeand movingsplit_for_remembersto the shared module since it has contract-specific logic.)Resolves #3326
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses.