Adding checks on the logical assertions of mem/delta pairs - #20
Open
Pr1ms wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
As before a mem/delta pair is needed either in core or in every alt or with mem in core and the deltas in alts or with delta in core and the mems in alts
The new logic additionally checks that the logical assertion for mem and delta are different (i.e. we're not checking directly or indirectly that mem = delta).
This was quite a volume change in the code so it may need deep scrutiny (and maybe more comments for maintainability). Don't hesitate to ask for changes.
I've tested a dozen of existing sets to be sure there were no regressions and I've also tested the set I'm currently reviewing (with has a number of bad delta checks) to make sure this logics properly flags the target issue.