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
It would be nice to have an explicit trace validation mode, similar to simulation, which would adjust behaviour to be more suitable to trace validation, for example using -Dtlc2.tool.queue.IStateQueue=StateDeque by default (as well as \cdot maybe).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
achamayou
changed the title
Feature request: -trace-validation mode
Feature request: -trace-validation/-tracevalidate mode
Feb 12, 2024
So far, the unspoken rule was that command-line parameters are API and system properties are not. Given that \cdot support is incomplete, we, perhaps, have to add an -experimental command-line parameter to explicitly enable experimental features.
So far, the unspoken rule was that command-line parameters are API and system properties are not.
That makes sense. So perhaps a way to rephrase the feature request is: can there be an API for trace validation? Relying on discovering and setting the right system properties (some combinations of which can be unsafe) is not ideal if this is going to be a supported workflow.
It would be nice to have an explicit trace validation mode, similar to simulation, which would adjust behaviour to be more suitable to trace validation, for example using
-Dtlc2.tool.queue.IStateQueue=StateDeque
by default (as well as \cdot maybe).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: