smyalygames/checklist-tester
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/smyalygames/checklist-tester.git synced 2025-11-30 01:39:38 +01:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(formal): add improvements suggested by Leo

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Anthony Berg
2024-05-06 18:29:49 +01:00
parent 0b0baa9a65
commit c6a37b8ac6
1 changed files with 41 additions and 103 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

116
formal/checklist.vdmsl
View File

@@ -24,45 +24,34 @@ values
before_start_procedure: Procedure = [fuel_chkl, pax_sign_chkl, windows_chkl, acol_chkl];
aircraft = mk_Aircraft(aircraft_panels, {"Before Start" |-> before_start_procedure});
aircraft = mk_Aircraft(aircraft_panels, before_start_procedure);
types
--@LF can this be empty? perhaps seq1?
String = seq of char;
--@doc The dataref name in X-Plane
Dataref = seq1 of char;
-- Aircraft
-- Switches
--@doc The state a switch can be in
-- 1 means off
SwitchState = <OFF> | <MIDDLE> | <ON>;
--@LF why have a type kist as a rename?
ItemState = SwitchState;
ItemState = SwitchState; --@TODO | Button | ...
--@doc A switch, with the possible states it can be in, and the state that it is in
Switch ::
position : SwitchState
middlePosition : bool
inv s ==
--@LF boolean conditions like these are clearer described as
-- not s.middlePosition => s.position <> <MIDDLE>
-- =
-- (s.position = <MIDDLE> => s.middlePosition)
--
--
--if s.middlePosition = false then
-- s.position <> <MIDDLE>
--else true;
(s.position = <MIDDLE> => s.middlePosition);
-- Knob
Knob ::
position : nat1
position : nat
--@LF how can a state be an int? perhaps a proper type (i..e. subset of int range or a union?)
states : seq1 of int
states : set1 of nat
inv k ==
--@LF if k.pos <= len k.states and pos is nat1, then states better be seq1 as well?! It implicitly already is anyhow.
k.position <= len k.states;
k.position in set k.states;
Lever = nat
inv t == t <= 100;
@@ -71,51 +60,17 @@ types
thrust: Lever
reverser: Lever
inv t ==
--@LF again, this is "programming" not modelling. This one won't turn out as clear as the one for Switch
-- but it is effectively this
--
-- (t.thrust > 0 <=> t.reverser = 0)
--
-- that is, if t.thurst > 0 then t.reverser = 0 and
-- and , if not (t.thurst > 0) then not t.reverser = 0
-- ==
-- if (t.thurst <= 0) then t.reverser <> 0
--
-- coming to think of this, t.reverser is already >= 0 (i.e. it's a nat?).
-- so the else is spurious (i.e. it is a good as "true"). Don't you mean
-- "t.reverser > 0"? (i.e. if thurst is <= 0, then reverser cannot be zero)?
--
-- again, this is concrete example how logic is better to illstrate issue than if-then-else.
-- arguably this is also a matter of taste. But as-is, this seems wrong.
if t.thrust > 0 then
t.reverser = 0
else
t.reverser >= 0;
(t.reverser > 0 <=> t.thrust = 0);
--@doc The type that the action of the button is
ItemType = <SWITCH> | <KNOB> | <BUTTON> | <THROTTLE>;
--@doc The unique switch/knob/etc of that aircraft
ObjectType = Switch | Knob | Throttle;
ItemObject ::
type : ItemType
object : Switch | Knob | Throttle
inv i ==
--@LF here I would write differently. This is protracted. I would use pattern matching
let type = i.type, object = i.object in
(type = <SWITCH> and is_Switch(object))
or (type = <KNOB> and is_Knob(object))
or (type = <THROTTLE> and is_Throttle(object));
--TODO add check for button
--@LF if type is always inline with the object, then why is it needed?
-- that is, would ItemType come from anywhere else but the way you consutrct object type?
-- this seems redudant (i.e. you just need object union type) perhaps as
ObjectType = Switch | Knob | Throttle;
ItemObject' ::
type : ItemType
object : ObjectType
inv mk_ItemObject'(type, object) ==
inv mk_ItemObject(type, object) ==
cases type:
<SWITCH> -> is_Switch(object),
<KNOB> -> is_Knob(object),
@@ -125,52 +80,44 @@ types
end;
--@doc Contains each ItemObject in the Aircraft, e.g. Fuel Pump switch
--@LF then String defintely shouldn't be empty. Otherwise, what does it mean to map empty to something?
-- dores it really need to be string?
Items = map String to ItemObject;
Items = map Dataref to ItemObject;
--@doc Contains the panels (all the items in the aircraft) and the checklist
--@doc Contains the panels (all the items in the aircraft) and the procedure
Aircraft ::
items : Items
checklist : Checklist;
--@LF should the domains of these two maps be equal or contained? Should the maps be non-empty?
--e.g.
-- inv mk_Aircraft(i, c) == (dom i = dom c) or (dom i subset dom c); ?
procedure : Procedure
inv mk_Aircraft(i, p) ==
({ x.procedure | x in seq p } subset dom i);
-- Checklist
--@doc Item of a checklist, e.g. Landing gear down
ChecklistItem ::
--@LF again, empty string here doesn't make sense.
procedure : String
procedure : Dataref
type : ItemType
--TODO Check is not only SwitchState
check : SwitchState
checked : bool;
--@doc This is the item with the complimentary item in the chcecklist
--@doc This is an item in the aircraft that complements the item in the procedure
ItemAndChecklistItem ::
item : ItemObject
--@LF this name is bad. This is not a check list but a check list item! call it checkListItem!
checklist: ChecklistItem
inv i == i.item.type = i.checklist.type;
checklistItem: ChecklistItem
inv i == i.item.type = i.checklistItem.type;
--@doc A section of a checklist, e.g. Landing Checklist
--@LF shouldn't this be non-empty? What's the point to map a checklist name to an empty procedure? Yes.
Procedure = seq1 of ChecklistItem
inv p ==
--len p > 0 and
--@LF the "trick" for "false not in set S" is neat. It forces a full evaluation, rather than short circuited (i.e. stops at first false).
-- I presume this was intended.
false not in set {
let first = p(x-1).checked, second = p(x).checked in
--@LF boolean values don't need equality check
(first = second) or (first and not second)--((first = true) and (second = false))
second => first--((first = true) and (second = false))
| x in set {2,...,len p}};
--@doc Full checklist, e.g. Startup, Descent, Landing Checklist
Checklist = map String to Procedure;
functions
-- PROCEDURES
--@doc Finds the index of the next item in the procedure that needs to be completed
@@ -254,28 +201,19 @@ functions
-- Checks the item has been moved correctly
check_item_in_position(RESULT.item, p.check);
--@doc Gets the procedure by the name, n.
get_procedure: String * Aircraft -> Procedure
get_procedure(n, a) ==
a.checklist(n)
pre
n in set dom a.checklist;
--@doc Completes a procedure step by step
-- n = Name of procedure, a = Aircraft
complete_procedure: String * Aircraft -> Aircraft
complete_procedure(n, a) ==
let procedure = get_procedure(n, a) in
-- a = Aircraft
complete_procedure: Aircraft -> Aircraft
complete_procedure(a) ==
let procedure = a.procedure in
mk_Aircraft(
a.items ++ { x.procedure |-> do_proc_item(a.items(x.procedure), x).item | x in seq procedure },
a.checklist ++ { n |-> [ complete_item(x) | x in seq procedure ] }
[ complete_item(x) | x in seq procedure ]
)
pre
let checklist = a.checklist in
n in set dom checklist
and not procedure_completed(checklist(n))
not procedure_completed(a.procedure)
post
procedure_completed(RESULT.checklist(n));
procedure_completed(RESULT.procedure);
-- AIRCRAFT ITEMS
--@doc Marks ChecklistItem as complete