Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
<tt>assert P :[deadlock free [F]]</tt>. | <tt>assert P :[deadlock free [F]]</tt>. | ||
The check of the assertion will finish by marking the assertion in the list box with a cross symbol (✘). The cross symbol indicates that a counterexample was found for the assertion | The check of the assertion will finish by marking the assertion in the list box with a cross symbol (✘). The cross symbol indicates that a counterexample was found for the assertion check. The counterexample is basically given by the trace <math>\langle a,b,c \rangle</math> as obviously `P` reaches a deadlock state after performing the trace <math>\langle a,b,c \rangle</math>. Providing a second double-click on the assertion will open the following debugging window: | ||
[[file: CSP_Deadlock_Trace.png]] | [[file: CSP_Deadlock_Trace.png]] | ||
Considering the CSP | Considering the CSP processes `Q` and `R` one can see or check that `R` is a trace refinement of `Q` since `R` performs the same set of traces as `Q`. Thus, the assertion check for `Q [T= R` will mark the assertion statement in the list box by a tick symbol (✔). On the other hand, checking the assertion `R [T= Q` will find a counterexample for the refinement check. Performing a second double-click on the item `R [T= Q` will open the following trace debugger window with the counterexample displayed in it: | ||
[[file: CSP_Trace_Debugger.png]] | [[file: CSP_Trace_Debugger.png]] | ||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
A counterexample of a trace-refinement assertion is a trace leading to a state in which the implementation process performs an event that the specification process cannot perform. In the example above both processes `P` and `Q` perform the trace <math>\langle a \rangle</math> and reach states in which the implementation process can perform an event that is not offered by the specification process ''R''. One can easily deduce from the picture above that `Q` performs after `a` the event `c` which is not offered by `R` as `R` can perform only `b` after `a`. In the left most column `Accept` the debugger window lists all possible events that are offered by the specification process after performing the trace given in the `Trace` column next to `Accepts`. | A counterexample of a trace-refinement assertion is a trace leading to a state in which the implementation process performs an event that the specification process cannot perform. In the example above both processes `P` and `Q` perform the trace <math>\langle a \rangle</math> and reach states in which the implementation process can perform an event that is not offered by the specification process ''R''. One can easily deduce from the picture above that `Q` performs after `a` the event `c` which is not offered by `R` as `R` can perform only `b` after `a`. In the left most column `Accept` the debugger window lists all possible events that are offered by the specification process after performing the trace given in the `Trace` column next to `Accepts`. | ||
As we already mentioned above `R` is a trace-refinement of `Q`. On the other hand, checking whether `R` is a failures-refinement of `Q` will produce a counterexample | As we already mentioned above `R` is a trace-refinement of `Q`. On the other hand, checking whether `R` is a failures-refinement of `Q` will produce a counterexample since `R` refuses the event `c` that is offered by Q after executing `a`. Accordingly, the counterexample will be illustrated within the following trace debugger window: | ||
[[file: CSP_Failures_Debugger.png]] | [[file: CSP_Failures_Debugger.png]] | ||
These are basically the three types of debugging windows that will appear when debugging a counterexample for an assertion check in case the respective assertion is not an LTL or a CTL assertion. When a counterexample for an LTL assertion is found it will be explored in the graphical viewer, the same graphical viewer that is used for visualizing the state space | These are basically the three types of debugging windows that will appear when debugging a counterexample for an assertion check in case the respective assertion is not an LTL or a CTL assertion. When a counterexample for an LTL assertion is found it will be explored in the graphical viewer, the same graphical viewer that is used for visualizing the state space models in ProB. | ||
Let us observe again the CSP process `Q` and suppose we want to check whether `Q` satisfies the LTL formula `F [c]`. Then, the respective LTL assertion is declared as follows: | Let us observe again the CSP process `Q` and suppose we want to check whether `Q` satisfies the LTL formula `F [c]`. Then, the respective LTL assertion is declared as follows: | ||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
[[file: CE_LTL_assertion.png]] | [[file: CE_LTL_assertion.png]] | ||
In the figure above, the nodes and the transitions of the respective counterexample "a -> (b -> a)+" are | In the figure above, the nodes and the transitions of the respective counterexample "a -> (b -> a)+" are colored in red. | ||
== Checking CSP Assertions with `probcli` == | == Checking CSP Assertions with `probcli` == |
As of version 1.3.4, ProB provides support for refinement checking and various other assertions (deadlock, divergence, determinism, and LTL/CTL assertions) of CSP-M specifications. In this tutorial we give a short overview of the ProB’s implementations and features for checking CSP assertions. In the Tcl/Tk interface of ProB, CSP assertions can be assembled and checked in the CSP Assertions Viewer. A description of the CSP Assertions Viewer is also given.
ProB provides support for checking almost all types of CSP-M assertions that can be checked within FDR2. Besides the assertion types that can be checked in FDR2, in ProB one also can check temporal properties on processes expressed by means of LTL and CTL formulae.[1] The following types of assertions are supported in ProB:
Refinement
Refinement is one of the fundamental notions for construction and verification of systems specified in CSP. Given two CSP processes P and Q one can state in ProB the property that process Q is an ‘m’ refinement of P by the following assertion declaration:
assert P [m= Q
where ‘m’ indicates one of the following types of comparison: ‘T’ for traces, ‘F’ for failures, ‘FD’ for failures-divergence, ‘R’ for refusals, and ‘RD’ for ‘refusals-divergence’. Note that the refinement types ‘V’ (revivals) and ‘VD’ (revivals-divergence) that are part of the refinement assertions supported by FDR2 are yet not supported by ProB.
Deadlock
Stating assertions about CSP processes to be deadlock-free is possible by the following assertion declaration:
assert P :[deadlock free [m]]
where P is a process expression and ‘m’ indicates one of the following models: ‘F’ (failures) and ‘FD’ (failures-divergence).
Determinism
Stating assertions about CSP processes to be deterministic is possible by the following assertion declaration:
assert P :[deterministic [m]]
where P is a process expression and ‘m’ one of the following models: ‘F’ (failures) and ‘FD’ (failures-divergence).
Livelock
Stating assertions about CSP processes to be livelock-free is possible by the following assertion declaration:
assert P :[livelock free]
where P is a process expression.
Temporal Properties
In ProB it is also possible to make assertions about temporal properties of CSP processes both in LTL and CTL. Basically, one wants to check whether some process P satisfies a formula f expressed in a temporal logic (denoted by P |= f).
To check whether a process P satisfies an LTL formula f write the following declaration:
assert P |= LTL: “f”
Note that f must be placed between quotes and that the satisfaction relation |= is immediately followed by `LTL:`. ProB supports LTL[e], an extended version of LTL which provides additionally support for making propositions on transitions. The following LTL[e] syntax for CSP-M specifications can be outlined by the following rules:
An LTL[e] formula f is satisfied by some CSP process P if all executions of P satisfy f. If there is an execution of P which violates the property f, then the test P |= f fails by providing a counterexample. Depending on whether f expresses, a safety or liveness property, a finite path or a path in a lasso-form (, i.e. a path leading to a cycle) is returned as a counterexample, respectively.
Note that ProB supports also Past-LTL[e]. Past-LTL[e], however, may be considered to be inappropriate for LTL assertions since the goal of this type of assertions is usually to check whether all executions starting at the initial states of the process satisfy the respective LTL[e] formula.
To check whether a process P satisfies a CTL formula f the following assertion should be made:
assert P |= CTL: “f”
As for LTL, CTL formulae should be put in between quotes. The CTL syntax for CSP-M specifications could be summarised as follows:
Note that these two types of assertions, the LTL and CTL assertions, are not part of the CSP-M language supported by FDR2. Loading a CSP-M file in FDR2 having assertion declarations of this form will exit with a syntax error. Bear in mind to remove or comment out such LTL/CTL assertions in the CSP-M file before loading it in FDR2.
When a CSP-M specification is loaded one can open the CSP Assertion Viewer either from the menu bar of the main window by selecting the `Check CSP-M Assertions` command in the `Verify` menu or from the Refinement button in the ‘’State Properties’’ pane. The viewer looks as follows:
The CSP Assertion Viewer of ProB has a similar design to the graphical user interface of FDR2. It consists basically of three main components: a menu bar, a list box and a tab pane. In the following each of the components and their corresponding functionalities are thoroughly described.
The Menu Bar
The menu bar is placed at the top of the window. On OS X, it is placed at the top of the screen. The menu bar includes several menus providing commands for adjusting, executing and changing the items in the list box, as well as some (standard) options for re-loading the model, saving the items to an external file or the loaded file, and launching some external tools related with the domain in which the list items are checked. Each menu can be popped up by a click with Mouse-1 (usually the left mouse button). The menu bar consists of the following menus and menu commands:
The Assertion List Box
This part of the viewer lists all assertions stated in the currently loaded CSP-M specification and provides a set of features for checking, manipulating, and debugging of CSP assertions in the list. To each statement in the assertion list box a symbol is assigned, placed on the left side of it, that reveals the current status of the statement in the viewer:
An assertion can be selected by clicking on it with Mouse-1 and checked by double-clicking on it with Mouse-1. Alternatively, selecting an assertion and then pressing the Enter key can start the respective assertion check. When an assertion check is in progress, the assertion will be marked by the clock symbol (⌚). If the assertion check is completed without interrupting it, a new status is assigned to the assertion: tick symbol (✔) indicating that the assertion was completed successfully or cross symbol (✘) indicating that a counterexample was found to the stated property. In case that the status is cross the counterexample can be explored by (second) double-click with Mouse-1 on the assertion or by selecting the assertion and then pressing the Enter key. If the respective assertion is negated, i.e. there is `not` in front of the assertion property, and marked with a cross, then no counterexample can be explored as the proper statement holds.
The list box is equipped with a contextual menu (or a pop-up menu), which appears when you right-click on an assertion in the list. Depending on the type and the status of the assertion the contextual menu provides options for checking, debugging, modifying the respective assertion, as well as various other options. Take, for example, the selected assertion on which the contextual menu is popped up in the picture below.
The assertion "ASSYSTEM |= LTL: “GF [eats.0]”" intends to check if the process ASSYSTEM satisfies the LTL formula "GF [eats.0]". For the selected assertion above, for example, the options `Show LTL Counterexample` and `Show LTL Counterexample in State Space` are enabled as a counterexample was found for the check. On the other hand, the options `Check Assertion` and `Interrupt Assertion` are disabled as the assertion check was completed.
The contextual menu has in general the following options:
The following options affect only the assertion being selected.
The following options affect all assertions in the list box.
Other options. The following options have no impact on the assertions in the list box.
The Tab Pane
The tab pane is placed at the bottom of the window and enables the user to construct and check properties of processes of the currently loaded CSP-M file without adding explicitly assertions to the file.
There are overall six tab pages. Each tab page is used to build up new assertion statements. The tab pages provide selectors, entries and command buttons for assembling, adding and checking new assertions. In each of the selectors all possible processes of the loaded CSP-M file are accessible. It is also possible to specify new process expressions by entering these in the respective entry of the process selector. The tab pages for creating LTL and CTL assertions provide additionally an appropriate entry for specifying the according LTL and CTL formula intended to be checked on the specified process, respectively.
Each tab page is equipped with the following command buttons:
In case an assertion check has failed the user can explore the reason for the assertion violation. If the corresponding assertion is not negated and after finishing the assertion check is marked by cross, then this is an indication that ProB has found a counterexample for the check. The counterexample can be explored by a second double-click with the ‘Mouse-1’ button or by selecting the assertion and then pressing the ‘Enter’ button. Depending on the type of the assertion and the type of the counterexample a corresponding debugging window is opened.
If a CSP process violates an LTL formula or a universally quantified CTL formula, then by performing a second double-click on the respective assertion one can explore the provided counterexample by means of the graphical viewer (Graphical Viewer).
In the following we give an overview of the features for debugging counterexamples being found for different refinement checks. Consider the following CSP processes:
P = a -> b -> c -> STOP
Q = a -> (b -> Q [] c -> Q)
R = a -> b -> R
If we intend to check whether P is deadlock free, then we can state the assertion
assert P :[deadlock free [F]].
The check of the assertion will finish by marking the assertion in the list box with a cross symbol (✘). The cross symbol indicates that a counterexample was found for the assertion check. The counterexample is basically given by the trace as obviously `P` reaches a deadlock state after performing the trace . Providing a second double-click on the assertion will open the following debugging window:
Considering the CSP processes `Q` and `R` one can see or check that `R` is a trace refinement of `Q` since `R` performs the same set of traces as `Q`. Thus, the assertion check for `Q [T= R` will mark the assertion statement in the list box by a tick symbol (✔). On the other hand, checking the assertion `R [T= Q` will find a counterexample for the refinement check. Performing a second double-click on the item `R [T= Q` will open the following trace debugger window with the counterexample displayed in it:
A counterexample of a trace-refinement assertion is a trace leading to a state in which the implementation process performs an event that the specification process cannot perform. In the example above both processes `P` and `Q` perform the trace and reach states in which the implementation process can perform an event that is not offered by the specification process R. One can easily deduce from the picture above that `Q` performs after `a` the event `c` which is not offered by `R` as `R` can perform only `b` after `a`. In the left most column `Accept` the debugger window lists all possible events that are offered by the specification process after performing the trace given in the `Trace` column next to `Accepts`.
As we already mentioned above `R` is a trace-refinement of `Q`. On the other hand, checking whether `R` is a failures-refinement of `Q` will produce a counterexample since `R` refuses the event `c` that is offered by Q after executing `a`. Accordingly, the counterexample will be illustrated within the following trace debugger window:
These are basically the three types of debugging windows that will appear when debugging a counterexample for an assertion check in case the respective assertion is not an LTL or a CTL assertion. When a counterexample for an LTL assertion is found it will be explored in the graphical viewer, the same graphical viewer that is used for visualizing the state space models in ProB.
Let us observe again the CSP process `Q` and suppose we want to check whether `Q` satisfies the LTL formula `F [c]`. Then, the respective LTL assertion is declared as follows:
assert Q |= LTL: “F [c]”
The assertion check will produce a counterexample as `Q` obviously reaches a cycle “(b -> a)+” that violates the property “F [c]”. Performing a second double-click on the assertion will display the following state space graph in the graphical viewer:
In the figure above, the nodes and the transitions of the respective counterexample "a -> (b -> a)+" are colored in red.
It is also possible to check CSP assertions with the command line version of ProB. The command has the following syntax:
probcli -csp_assertion "A" File
where A is a CSP assertion and File the path to the CSP file. For example, if we want to check the refinement assertion `P [T= Q` on some CSP specification `example.csp`, then we can do this by running the ProB command line version with the following options:
probcli -csp_assertion "P [T= Q" example.csp
Note that the assertion should be placed between quotes. In addition, when an assertion is checked with the '-csp_assertion' option the keyword assert should be omitted.