From 30e5051239a5e2384efe7598414c7e63bb4a637c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hernan Ponce de Leon Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 16:22:48 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Avoid using the term coverage in the report about executed events (#503) Signed-off-by: Hernan Ponce de Leon --- .../dat3m/dartagnan/verification/solving/RefinementSolver.java | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/dartagnan/src/main/java/com/dat3m/dartagnan/verification/solving/RefinementSolver.java b/dartagnan/src/main/java/com/dat3m/dartagnan/verification/solving/RefinementSolver.java index 6a741c24bf..ede8ccaaed 100644 --- a/dartagnan/src/main/java/com/dat3m/dartagnan/verification/solving/RefinementSolver.java +++ b/dartagnan/src/main/java/com/dat3m/dartagnan/verification/solving/RefinementSolver.java @@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ private static CharSequence generateCoverageReport(Set coveredEvents, Pro final double branchCoveragePercentage = coveredBranches.size() * 1d / branches.size(); final StringBuilder report = new StringBuilder() - .append("Property-based coverage (executed by at least one property-violating execution, including inconsistent executions): \n") + .append("Events executed by at least one property-violating behavior, including inconsistent executions: \n") .append("\t-- Events: ") .append(String.format("%s (%s / %s)", df.format(eventCoveragePercentage), programEvents.size() - messageSet.size(), programEvents.size()))