counterexample-explainer

Counterexample analysis works by generating detailed execution traces that show state changes leading to a violation. It compares expected versus actual behavior to pinpoint the exact root cause of the test failure or broken runtime assertion.

Model checker outputs violate formal specifications when internal state transitions deviate from defined invariants. Analyzing the counterexample trace highlights the specific step where expected behavior diverges from actual behavior, revealing the design flaw or bug causing the violation.

The best way to perform root cause analysis on a runtime assertion violation is to assess the counterexample impact and generate a human-readable execution trace. This isolates the exact state change causing the specification violation and explains the consequences of the failure.

Yes, you need detailed input on the specification and the counterexample data to explain a violation accurately. Providing the formal or informal specification rules allows the analysis to compare expected versus actual behavior and identify the root cause effectively.

Yes, you can assess the impact of a specification violation from a failed test by analyzing the counterexample data. The evaluation explains the consequences of the violation by detailing the exact execution steps and state changes that led to the failure.