Skip to content
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

Request to update dictionary to fuzz on smart values #7551

Closed
2 tasks done
snreynolds opened this issue Apr 2, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed
2 tasks done

Request to update dictionary to fuzz on smart values #7551

snreynolds opened this issue Apr 2, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
A-testing Area: testing T-bug Type: bug

Comments

@snreynolds
Copy link

Component

Forge

Have you ensured that all of these are up to date?

  • Foundry
  • Foundryup

What version of Foundry are you on?

forge 0.2.0 (f625d0f 2024-04-02T00:16:42.810315000Z)

What command(s) is the bug in?

forge test

Operating System

None

Describe the bug

We recently manually caught an outdated fuzz test that should have thrown had a correct input been chosen. See this PR for reference/repro

https://github.com/Uniswap/v4-core/pull/529/files

@klkvr
Copy link
Member

klkvr commented Apr 3, 2024

Thanks for reporting this! It's a nice example of fuzzer downside and #7552 should decrease number of runs this test needs to fail, however, it will still be very high :/

This is happening due to test having several branches, and most of the runs are not hitting the one which should fail, thus decreasing its chance to be executed with failing input.

I'd recommend rewriting this test into several separate tests to ensure that all scenarios are covered by high number of runs

@zerosnacks zerosnacks added the A-testing Area: testing label Jul 12, 2024
@zerosnacks
Copy link
Member

zerosnacks commented Jul 12, 2024

cc @grandizzy do you see any actionable item for this ticket that we can improve upon?

@grandizzy
Copy link
Collaborator

cc @grandizzy do you see any actionable item for this ticket that we can improve upon?

I think that's more suitable for symbolic testing which we track to implement with #15

@zerosnacks zerosnacks closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jul 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testing Area: testing T-bug Type: bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants