kibi-core 0.24.0 → 0.26.1

package/src/requirement_proof.pl

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
 :- use_module('logic_ir.pl', [logic_rule_safety/2]).
 :- use_module('code_certificates.pl', [code_certificate_check/2, code_certificate_digest/2]).
 :- use_module('claim_obligations.pl', [claim_obligation/3, obligation_equal/2]).
+:- use_module('model_check.pl', [model_check_obligation/4]).
 
 proof_version('kibi.requirement-proof.v5').
 
@@ -1009,7 +1010,7 @@ valid_receipt_version_fields('kibi.proof-receipt.v1', _Receipt).
 valid_receipt_version_fields('kibi.proof-receipt.v2', Receipt) :-
     inventory_entry_field(Receipt, kind, RawKind),
     normalize_receipt_atom(RawKind, Kind),
-    memberchk(Kind, [e2e, example, property, exhaustive, typecheck, arithmetic, smt]),
+    memberchk(Kind, [e2e, example, property, exhaustive, typecheck, arithmetic, smt, rule, state_machine, regex, source]),
     inventory_entry_field(Receipt, evidence_level, RawLevel),
     normalize_receipt_atom(RawLevel, Level),
     memberchk(Level, [proved, tested]),
@@ -1019,7 +1020,7 @@ valid_receipt_version_fields('kibi.proof-receipt.v2', Receipt) :-
     ;   true
     ),
     (   Level == proved
-    ->  memberchk(Kind, [exhaustive, typecheck, arithmetic, smt]),
+    ->  memberchk(Kind, [exhaustive, typecheck, arithmetic, smt, rule, state_machine, regex, source]),
         inventory_entry_field(Receipt, outcome, RawOutcome),
         normalize_receipt_atom(RawOutcome, passed),
         inventory_entry_field(Receipt, certificate, _),
@@ -1996,7 +1997,7 @@ claim_entry(ReqId, ProofStatus, IntentLevel, BoundTests, InventoryEntry, Entry)
             sort(Bindings0, Bindings),
             include(binding_is(rejected), Bindings, RejectedBindings),
             maplist(binding_rejection(Key), RejectedBindings, Rejections),
-            (   member(B, Bindings), get_dict(binding, B, derived), get_dict(scope, B, code)
+            (   member(B, Bindings), get_dict(binding, B, derived), \+ get_dict(scope, B, intent)
             ->  Level = proved
             ;   Level = tested
             ),
@@ -2097,6 +2098,12 @@ certificate_obligation_problem(arithmetic, Evidence, Obligation, Problem) :-
     ;   Problem = 'the certificate\'s claim is not the fact\'s constraint'
     ).
 
+certificate_obligation_problem(Kind, Evidence, Obligation, Problem) :-
+    memberchk(Kind, [rule, state_machine, source]),
+    get_dict(certificate, Evidence, Certificate),
+    model_check_obligation(Kind, Obligation, Certificate, problem(Problem0)),
+    atom_string(Problem, Problem0).
+
 %% claim_summary(+ClaimEvidence, -Summary, -UnprovedClaims)
 claim_summary(ClaimEvidence, Summary, Unproved) :-
     include(applicable_claim, ClaimEvidence, Applicable),

package/src/rule_registry.pl

@@ -318,4 +318,4 @@ rule_description('policy-markers', 'When a plugin activated for kibi.check-polic
 rule_description('kb-consistency', 'The facts current requirements name must hold together, jointly and not only pairwise: every property context needs a value that satisfies all its facts, every atom and decision key one truth value, and stored rules a stratification. Each finding is a contradiction certificate (an irreducible core, two disagreeing facts or a negation cycle) re-verified by the independent checker, or a certificate that checker rejects').
 rule_description('kb-consistency-unresolved', 'Advisory: a property context, atom or decision key whose facts the consistency checker cannot compare (mixed value types or units, an unsupported operator or polarity, or a contradiction whose validity windows never overlap); it never counts as consistent').
 rule_description('evidence-floor', 'Every current requirement\'s computed evidence level (proved, tested, asserted, unverified) must reach its floor: required_evidence when set, otherwise tested for a firm requirement and no floor for any other. Receipts that are only older than the code count as pending re-proof and pass, unless kibi check runs with --fresh-evidence, which also needs a clean proof snapshot').
-rule_description('proof-contract-claims', 'From schema 12, every certificate-kind proof contract (exhaustive, typecheck, arithmetic, smt) must name the claims it proves in proves, and each named claim must be a modeled claim of a current requirement the test reaches through its scenarios, grounded by a fact that proof kind can express or attest').
+rule_description('proof-contract-claims', 'From schema 12, every certificate-kind proof contract (exhaustive, typecheck, arithmetic, smt, rule, state_machine, regex) must name the claims it proves in proves, and each named claim must be a modeled claim of a current requirement the test reaches through its scenarios, grounded by a fact that proof kind can express or attest').