Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

GNATStudio plugin #1

Closed
Jellix opened this issue Apr 3, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #43
Closed

GNATStudio plugin #1

Jellix opened this issue Apr 3, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #43
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@Jellix
Copy link
Member

Jellix commented Apr 3, 2020

It could be handy to have a plug-in in GNATStudio so that the user can run the tool after a prove and see the information possibly interspersed with the actual source code.

Not clear yet, though, how the output should be displayed in the IDE.

@Jellix Jellix added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 3, 2020
@Jellix Jellix self-assigned this Apr 3, 2020
@Jellix Jellix changed the title [Enhancement] GNATStudio plugin GNATStudio plugin May 29, 2020
@yannickmoy
Copy link
Contributor

IMO the simplest integration is to have the tool display a sorted list of all checks, starting with the unproved and then the proved ones, ordered by decreasing proof time. Possibly with a cut-off at 1s to not display proofs that are faster than that. If you use the "file:line:col msg" format, the standard output parser in GNAT Studio will readily add links to the source code.

Something more involved would require plotting the proof effort. I can imagine having a 2-dimensional plot with steps/time as axes and a dot for each check, on which you can zoom and click on a given dot to bring you to the corresponding line-of-code and message. Just a product of imagination right now, as it probably requires extending Cairo binding in GNAT Studio. Not sure it's worth the effort, compared to the simple integration above.

@Jellix Jellix added this to the V1.1.0 milestone Jun 18, 2020
@Jellix Jellix linked a pull request Jun 21, 2020 that will close this issue
@Jellix Jellix closed this as completed Jun 21, 2020
@Jellix
Copy link
Member Author

Jellix commented Jun 21, 2020

The plug-in sorts the times in a binary logarithmic manner, so there is possibly no need for using the --cut-off parameter.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants