Repository navigation
docs(lib): correct which guard term rejects a leaked cancelled pending node - #295
Merged
Merged
Conversation
hardyjosh
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 10, 2026 15:38
This was referenced Aug 10, 2026
Collaborator
Author
This was referenced Aug 10, 2026
Collaborator
Author
Merge activity
|
hardyjosh
force-pushed
the
fix/signed-price-hardening
branch
from
August 10, 2026 16:35
a9fa039 to
99740ac
Compare
hardyjosh
force-pushed
the
fix/lib-pause-guard-doc
branch
from
August 10, 2026 16:35
bbbfec2 to
5bf24e5
Compare
hardyjosh
changed the base branch from
fix/signed-price-hardening
to
graphite-base/295
August 10, 2026 16:39
…g node Adversarial-pass finding (libs C2) on LibCorporateActionsPause. The pending branch guard `pendingCursor != NODE_NONE && pendingEffective != 0` attributed the rejection of a leaked cancelled node (effectiveTime == 0) to the `!= 0` term, but that term is logically dead here: the inner `pendingEffective > block.timestamp` re-assertion already rejects a zero (or past) effectiveTime, since `0 > block.timestamp` is false. Deleting the `!= 0` conjunct is a provably equivalent mutant — no test can distinguish the two programs. Corrected the comment to state that the `> block.timestamp` re-assertion is what closes the phantom-node hole on this branch, and that the `!= 0` twin IS load-bearing on the COMPLETED branch (where the re-assertion is `<= block.timestamp`, which 0 satisfies). Comment-only; no behaviour change. 191 tests; fmt/slither clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013hi8wq9YkjWPcGACXCEKeL
hardyjosh
force-pushed
the
fix/lib-pause-guard-doc
branch
from
August 10, 2026 16:41
5bf24e5 to
ed0fb1d
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adversarial finding libs C2 (mutation-test run @ c371a23). Stacked on #294.
Comment-only. The pending-branch guard's
pendingEffective != 0term is a provably-dead equivalent mutant — the> block.timestampre-assertion already rejects a leaked cancelled node. Corrects the NatSpec to attribute the rejection correctly (and notes the!= 0twin IS load-bearing on the completed branch). No behaviour change.🤖 Generated with Claude Code