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

Add small improvements to the Disruptor spec. #151

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024

Conversation

nicholassm
Copy link
Contributor

  • Add comment on 'Multicast' behaviour.
  • Add ASSUME for MaxPublished constant.
  • Add comment on the usage of the 'consumed' variable.
  • Remove WF from write actions.
  • Remove bounding of model happening in BeginWrite action. Use a State constraint instead. Use suggestion for liveliness property.
  • (The last two items are not done yet for the MPMC spec - it's less straight forward to do because of the multiple producers behaviour.)

- Add comment on 'Multicast' behaviour.
- Add ASSUME for MaxPublished constant.
- Add comment on the usage of the 'consumed' variable.
- Remove WF from write actions.
- Remove bounding of model happening in BeginWrite action. Use a State
  constraint instead. Use suggestion for liveliness property.
- (The last two items are not done yet for the MPMC spec - it's less
  straight forward to do because of the multiple producers behaviour.)

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Schultz-Møller <[email protected]>
- Flip 'Advance' and 'Access' states - they were flipped.
- Remove model boundary from 'BeginWrite' action - separates spec and
  verification.
- Fix 'published' variable which had an unused mapping.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Schultz-Møller <[email protected]>
@nicholassm
Copy link
Contributor Author

Alright, added the same improvements to the Multi Producer Multi Consumer specification.
Thanks.

manifest.json Show resolved Hide resolved
@nicholassm
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm considering moving the "spec" section (Init, Next and Liveliness) to the top (i.e. below constants and variables) to make it easier to understand the models for users. Kind of like an article where you read the highlights in the subheading.

What is generally recommended?

@lemmy
Copy link
Member

lemmy commented Sep 27, 2024

The definition of a formula has to come before its use. In other words, the parser won't accept it.

@nicholassm
Copy link
Contributor Author

Makes sense.

Is there anything else you can see that I can do to improve this PR?
It's mostly related to (excellent) suggestions from @muenchnerkindl.

Kind regards,
Nicholas

@nicholassm
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi guys,

Is there anything else I should do to increase the quality further? Otherwise, I think it's ready for merging. :-)
Many thanks in advance.

Kind regards
Nicholas

@ahelwer ahelwer merged commit cfa1614 into tlaplus:master Oct 7, 2024
7 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants