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

Figure out if there's a reasonable way to shrink operations themselves #5

Open
nickelization opened this issue Jun 28, 2023 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@nickelization
Copy link
Contributor

Currently, we only shrink by removing entire operations, not by shrinking the operations themselves. Shrinking an individual operation can be quite tricky, however, because oftentimes later operations were generated based off the specific operations that came before them.

It may be possible to add some kind of optional "fix operation" callback that can attempt to modify later operations to make preconditions pass again after an earlier operation is shrunk, but this seems like a tricky proposition, and in practice we've found that the current shrinking method is sufficient; getting to a minimal set of steps to produce a failure typically makes it easy to understand failing cases even if the steps themselves are more complex than they need to be.

However, if anyone has any ideas or suggestions here, I'd love to hear them. It would be a cool feature to implement, if it turns out there's a good way to achieve it.

@nickelization nickelization added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed and removed help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Jun 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant