Skip to content
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

Improvements to Foundry Documentation #317

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Dec 10, 2024

Conversation

johspaeth
Copy link
Contributor

@johspaeth johspaeth commented Nov 25, 2024

This PR adds some information to the foundry integration to clarify simplification on how to use it.

@johspaeth johspaeth requested a review from urikirsh November 27, 2024 14:16
the expected one, the test will still be marked as successful.

- The call trace for the Foundry integration can be hard to read as it is internally implemented as a parametric CVL rule with case splitting on the method `.selector` of each method. This leads to the call trace containing an `if` statement per fuzz test method. When focusing on a particular test it is helpful to use the `--method <FUZZ_TEST_METHOD_NAME>` [flag](https://docs.certora.com/en/latest/docs/prover/cli/options.html#method-method-signature).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would be very helpful if we can show an example of the problem and how to resolve it:

  1. An exemplary Foundry test Solidity file with two simple and short tests
  2. A screenshot of the call trace of these tests showing the parametric rule
  3. A command line example showing how to focus on the results of a single test

As is, it is hard to understand the text, and our users always complain that there are not enough examples.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the feedback - I added screenshots and links to existing jobs to clarify what we mean here. @urikirsh please re-review.

@johspaeth johspaeth requested a review from urikirsh December 6, 2024 15:52
Copy link
Contributor

@urikirsh urikirsh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! Some small comments

docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/cvl/foundry-integration.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@johspaeth johspaeth merged commit 50a9768 into master Dec 10, 2024
2 checks passed
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