msat | Multiset Constraint Solver for Multi-SAT

Inside your fragment:

replace

Yes that is the way to do it, just remember that the order of initializiation is based on the declaration order of the members and NOT the order of them in the initializer list:

12.6.2 Initializing bases and members
...
13 In a non-delegating constructor, initialization proceeds in the following order:
...
(13.3) — Then, non-static data members are initialized in the order they were declared in the class definition (again regardless of the order of the mem-initializers).

Source

So just keep them declared in the order you have, and maybe add a comment telling that the order shouldn't be changed and everything is fine:

You can obtain target HTML with CSS selector e.g. the following will get the element in question:

The output of check_fsm tells you where the problem is: there are deadlock states in your FSM.

See FAQ #011

BDD based LTL model checking algorithms implemented in NuSMV reason only about infinite paths. Thus, even for a safety property that does not hold, a lasso-shaped counterexample is generated, although a finite path would be enough. While doing the check, it is assumed the totality of the transition relation and the absence of deadlocks, and the search is restricted to consider only infinite paths, disregarding all paths leading to a deadlock. Thus, a finite path leading to a deadlock and falsifying the property will not be detected.

SAT based bounded model checking algorithms also assume the totality of the transition relation and the absence of deadlocks, but they are looking for a counterexample for the given property that is either finite or infinite. Thus, differently from the BDD based LTL model checking algorithms, a finite path leading to a deadlock and falsifying the property will be detected.

Both algorithms assume the totality of the transition relation and the absence of deadlocks but they do not specifically check for these conditions being satisfied. It is the user responsibility to perform this check by e.g. issuing the -ctt command line flag in batch mode, or by invoking the check_fsm command in the NuSMV shell.

Up to now there is no flag to disable the search for a finite path within SAT based bounded model checking. However, by adding within the model the following justice fairness condition

JUSTICE TRUE;

the bounded model checking algorithms stop looking for a finite path and restrict the search to only infinite paths:

Another possible difference in the reported verification results can be happen when the NuSMV model contains more than one initial state. The BDD based approach relies on the reduction of LTL model checking to CTL model checking (via tableau construction). CTL model checking universally quantify over the set of fair initial states. Thus, only initial states that are fair are considered. There can be initial states that are not fair, and they are not considered. This choice can be questionable, but it is also shown by CadenceSMV. Differently, BMC based model checking does not restrict to consider only fair initial states. Thus, if there exists an initial state that is not fair and from which there is a finite path violates the fairness conditions it will find it.

In the first case, the LTL property is checked with classic Tableau-based Model Checking. With this approach, the engine has a global view of the Finite State Machine represented in the model, and therefore it can provide a counter-example trace representing an (infinite) execution trace violating a given property.

In the second case, the LTL property is checked with Bounded Model Checking, which means that the engine advances the search by considering increasingly longer execution traces and lacks a global view of the Finite State Machine represented in the model. As a result, the counter-example returned by this engine always consists in some (finite) execution trace of minimum length.

In the given code example, the property G (!(((FlagLO = FALSE) & (tt < 5)))) IN module is already violated in the first state of the execution trace:

It really depends how you have the text set... but you can do something like.

Your error is AppCompatButton. You should extend only Button.

You should research EventBus : https://github.com/greenrobot/EventBus . It is provide that notice activity or fragment anything.

Please try again:

JAXB issues should be fixed in 2.4.1 version. But that's not a single issue in your case, as I see several problems in provided pom.xml:

• There's a mess of 2 different Allure TestNG adapter versions.
• There's no report version specified in plugin's section.
• Wrong report generation command is used. Check the official allure-maven page for details.