Basic Structure for the Abstract Interpretation

[LukasPietzschmann]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 33 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (f059b24) 71.24% compared to head (dcf9eae) 71.49%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/util/cfg/cfg.ts	60.00%	14 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
src/abstract-interpretation/domain.ts	81.70%	12 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
src/util/cfg/visitor.ts	94.44%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #397      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.24%   71.49%   +0.24%     
==========================================
  Files         215      217       +2     
  Lines        6858     6984     +126     
  Branches     1061     1084      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits         4886     4993     +107     
- Misses       1691     1704      +13     
- Partials      281      287       +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[EagleoutIce]

Just a note so we do not forget it:

• we need a way to detect if interval tracking is not beneficial/valid (e.g,. if we see an x <- TRUE).
• we should have a single point to define what the worst-case assumption represents (do we want to use Infinity or mark such fields separately?

[EagleoutIce]

Make ready for merge!

[LukasPietzschmann]

@EagleoutIce So I cleared all open comments / TODOs. Theoretically, this PR should be mergeable now.

Buuuuut AI still makes many tests fail (mainly 'cause we don't know how to handle many cases). I think it's also a long term goal to make AI fail silently. Is this something for a new issue, or should this be implemented in this PR?

[EagleoutIce]

As far as I am concerned, at least passing these tests (e.g., by removing AI from the main pipeline for now) should be part of this PR.