ProB validation Sample Clauses

ProB validation. The IVP generation tool has been empirically validated. For each project, we have verified that all important data were kept in the modified machines and that Atelier B and ProB were still type checking them. The ProB launcher and synthesis report generator were also empirically validated. Their validity is also base on the ProB validation which was carried out by Dusseldorf Team who has realised − over 1000 manual entered unit tests at the Prolog level, which check the proper functioning of the various core predicates operating on B’s data structures. − Over 500 regression tests which are made up of B models along with saved traces. These tests are valuable in ensuring that a bug once fixed remains fixed. They are also very effective at uncovering errors in different ProB components (parser, type checker, B interpreter, ProB kernel, etc.) which are critical components for the data validation. − Self-Model check with Mathematical Laws. The idea is to formulate a wide variety of mathematical laws and then use the model checker to ensure that no counter-example to these laws can be found. ProB now check itself for over 500 mathematical laws which covers laws for Booleans (39 laws), arithmetic laws (40), laws for sets (81), relations (189), functions (73) and sequences (61) as well as some specific laws about integer ranges (24) and various basic integer sets (7). The above tests are complemented by a code coverage analysis which shows that all predicates and clauses of the ProB kernel are covered by tests. Some clauses cannot be covered because they are only reachable through internal errors.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to ProB validation

  • Validation To validate the notice requirements outlined in Section 5.3, the Assuming Institution shall provide the Receiver (i) an Affidavit of Publication to meet the publication requirements outlined in Section 5.3(a) and (ii) the Assuming Institution will prepare an Affidavit of Mailing in a form substantially similar to Exhibit 2.3B after mailing the seven (7) day Notice to Depositors as required under Section 5.3(b).

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Inspection and Testing Each Constructing Entity shall cause inspection and testing of the Interconnection Facilities that it constructs in accordance with the provisions of this section. The Construction Parties acknowledge and agree that inspection and testing of facilities may be undertaken as facilities are completed and need not await completion of all of the facilities that a Constructing Entity is building.

  • DEVELOPMENT OR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS/ STATEMENTS OF WORK Firms and/or individuals that assisted in the development or drafting of the specifications, requirements, statements of work, or solicitation documents contained herein are excluded from competing for this solicitation. This shall not be applicable to firms and/or individuals providing responses to a publicly posted Request for Information (RFI) associated with a solicitation.

  • Maintenance and Testing 54.5.1. Sprint is only responsible for maintaining the facilities that it owns.

  • Manufacturing (a) The Supplier shall without limitation be responsible, at no additional cost to the Purchaser, for: sourcing and procuring all raw materials for the Products; obtaining all necessary approvals, permits and licenses for the manufacturing of the Products; providing sufficient qualified staff and workers to perform the obligations under this Purchase Agreement; implementing and maintaining effective inventory and production control procedures with respect to the Products; and handling other matters as reasonably requested by the Purchaser from time to time.

  • Diagnostic procedures to aid the Provider in determining required dental treatment.

  • Manufacture 2.1. The LED(s) on the LED module shall be equipped with suitable fixation elements.

  • Validation Mechanism To be eligible for articulation, the student must show evidence of their CompTIA A+ certification and it must have been issued within three (3) years prior to their enrollment in the program.

  • Random Drug Testing All employees covered by this Agreement shall be subject to random drug testing in accordance with Appendix D.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.