You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We identified few cases that require extension to the current TADL langauge.
support for "mode switching" that is automatically verified, e.g. two modes A,B should always switch either A->B or B->A, but not A->A nor B->B
Here is a proposal, how the new TADL language could look like:
# Annotation group: modeA-modeB
## no multi-modeA
CTL AG(modeA -> AX(A[!modeA U modeB]))
## no multi-modeB
CTL AG(modeB -> AX(!E[!modeA U (modeB & !modeA)]))
## if there is "modeB" there must have been a "modeA" before
LTL G(modeB -> O(modeA))
# these are rules for adding new annotations to the specification
modeA -> mark:modeA; unmark:modeB
modeB -> mark:modeB; unmark:modeA
Another example could be the "abort" annotation which should automatically add "mark" annotation.
# Annotation group: abort
abort -> mark:abort
Finally, we could extend the TADL language to automatically add context information, such as use-case ID or step ID.
We identified few cases that require extension to the current TADL langauge.
support for "mode switching" that is automatically verified, e.g. two modes A,B should always switch either A->B or B->A, but not A->A nor B->B
Here is a proposal, how the new TADL language could look like:
Another example could be the "abort" annotation which should automatically add "mark" annotation.
Finally, we could extend the TADL language to automatically add context information, such as use-case ID or step ID.
... which would allow for guards like this:
guard:create_UC1_5a4
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: