Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Oct 9, 2022. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@marfvr
Copy link
Member

@marfvr marfvr commented May 21, 2020

Proposed changes

Add some simple theorems in the tests. They are tested using Hypothesis to replace the placeholder with "every possible" formula (almost :-) )

Fixes

n/a

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to agents-tac?
Put an x in the boxes that apply

  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply.

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
  • I am making a pull request against the develop branch (left side). Also you should start your branch off our develop.
  • Lint and unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works

Further comments

n/a

)
@settings(max_examples=500)
def test_advanced_theorems(ldlf_theorem, word, ldlf_formula_1, ldlf_formula_2):
"""Test that the validity of theorems."""
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is there a typo? "Test that the validity of theorems."

Copy link
Collaborator

@cipollone cipollone left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Really a nice idea.

(btw, there is an old wrong TODO in the same file. If you commit again, maybe you can delete that comment)

Comment on lines +80 to +81
"<a>({f1}) <-> ([!a]ff & <a>({f1}))",
"[a]({f1}) <-> (<!a>tt | [a]({f1}))",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think the first of the two is always satisfied regardless of the formulae, because the same term appear twice.
Maybe the second is different. Could we change the two rightmost a with true to really use f1 as test?
Double check.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, I think I was wrong. Both have one direction of the implication which does not cancels out. -> [!a]ff for the first, and <- <!a>tt for the second.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants