-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 156
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
Audit/Compare the Conway spec to the implementation #3156
Comments
There is a link to conway formal spec? |
great question, there's not yet, unfortunately. CIP-1694 is the closest thing that we have so far. See this section for a loose understanding of what is in scope for conway. Our goal for conway is to do something new and exciting with the spec: use the Agda model to produce a PDF with the relevant changes. When it is ready, I will add a link to it at the top of the table in the main README of this repo. |
Yes, the full spec is implemented in Agda: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/formal-ledger-specifications There are links in the readme to PDF version as well. |
My notes that came out of the audit with @WhatisRT and the final outcomes:
|
💪 |
Audit that the conway formal spec matches the implementation. (it would be better to have conformance tests against an executable model
, but the new agda model will probably not be fully executable in time.)Blocks branch
Level 1
DELEG
GOVCERT
POOL
Level 2
CERT
CERTS
GOV
Level 3
UTXOS
UTXO
(babbage)UTXOW
(babbage)Level 4
LEDGER
Ticks branch
Level 1
ENACT
POOLREAP
(shelley)SNAP
(shelley)Level 2
RATIFY
Level 3
EPOCH
Level 4
NEWEPOCH
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: