From 58f49284a8b28752db21d4597d9e833386df1d8f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Johannes=20Sp=C3=A4th?= Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:09:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Update docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md Co-authored-by: urikirsh <38188877+urikirsh@users.noreply.github.com> --- docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md b/docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md index 952d218e..1e23b13d 100644 --- a/docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md +++ b/docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ Say the user selected `test_percentMul_fuzz_no_expectRevert(uint256 value, uint2 there is an entry `f.selector == (sig:PercentageMathTests.test_percentMul_fuzz_no_expectRevert(uint256 value, uint256 percentage)).selector ↪ true` and a then block `Then(cvlRange=Fuzz.t.spec:1:1)`. The method has been inlined within the then block, here you can find the parameter assignments that lead to the violation.\ \ -If you run the same example the flag `--method "test_percentMul_fuzz_wrong_assert(uint256,uint256)"` ([Link to job](https://prover.certora.com/output/53900/0efb4c7272774df886203375b490300a?anonymousKey=5f95f5d1c2a0b8aac88cd6d5842e577707238747)), the call trace largely simplifies. +If you run the same example the flag `--method "test_percentMul_fuzz_wrong_assert(uint256,uint256)"` ([Link to job](https://prover.certora.com/output/53900/0efb4c7272774df886203375b490300a?anonymousKey=5f95f5d1c2a0b8aac88cd6d5842e577707238747)), the call trace is significantly simpler. ![Foundry Integration - Simpler Call Trace](foundry-integration-simple-call-trace.png)