The smart programming assistantFrancesco LogozzoResearcherMicrosoft Research, Redmond3-403
What is it?Vision for modern programming.Developed at RiSE, Microsoft Research.Real-time feedback.Report tricky bugs and regressions.Code improvements.Suggest code fixes and specifications.
“Standing on the shoulders of giants”CodeContracts.Contracts library part of .NET since v4.0.• Specify preconditions, postconditions, object-invariants.
Contracts tools: Static checker, and other tools available on VS Gallery.• Overall 100K downloads.
Roslyn CTP.C#/VB compilers as services.Open-up the compiler pipeline to expose internals.• ASTs, Refactoring…
Code contracts static checkerVisual Studio/Roslyn
Semantic Inference.
Error checking.
Verified repairs.
Pre/post inference.
Semantic baseline.
Stored information
Answer queries.Code
Architecture
Demo!
Questions?
Evaluate this session
Scan this QR code to evaluate this session and be automatically entered in a drawing to win a prize!
© 2013 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.
Backup slides
CodeContractsContract API part of .NET since v.4.0. Tools available on VS Gallery.Almost 100K downloads overall.• Devlabs, VS Gallery.Active user MSDN forum.7700+ messages.
Available in VS Gallery!
MoreVS 2012 integration.Runtime checking.Documentation generation.LessPost-build static analysis.• Scale via team shared SQL DB.No refactoring.
Static analysisDifferent from FxCop, Coverity, Resharper…Those are (mostly) pattern-match based.Perform deep semantic code analysis. For each program point, infer invariants.Invariants are properties that hold for all possible executions.Main Idea: replace concrete values with abstract values.Example: Instead of x : {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10} have x : [0, 10] && x is even.
Inferencepublic int BinarySearch(int[] array, int value){ Contract.Requires(array != null); var inf = 0; var sup = array.Length - 1;
while (inf <= sup) {
var mid = (inf + sup) / 2; var midValue = array[mid];
if (midValue < value) inf = mid + 1; else if (midValue > value) sup = mid - 1; else return mid; }
return -1;}
inf: [0, 0], sup: [-1, MaxValue), sup < array.Length inf ≤ sup, sup: [0, MaxValue)
mid: [0, MaxValue), mid ≤ sup, mid < array.Length
inf: [1, MaxValue], sup: [0, MaxValue) inf:[0, 0], sup: [-1, MaxValue-1), sup < array.Length
inf: [0, MaxValue], sup: [-1, MaxValue), sup < array.Length
inf: [0, MaxValue], sup: [-1, MaxValue), sup < array.Length
array != null
MinValue ≤ (inf + sup) ≤ MaxValue
Checkspublic int BinarySearch(int[] array, int value){ Contract.Requires(array != null); var inf = 0; var sup = array.Length - 1;
while (inf <= sup) {
var mid = (inf + sup) / 2; var midValue = array[mid];
if (midValue < value) inf = mid + 1; else if (midValue > value) sup = mid - 1; else return mid; }
return -1;}
array != null
MinValue ≤ array.Length -1 ≤ MaxValue
0 ≤ mid array != null
mid < array.Length
MinValue ≤ mid + 1 ≤ MaxValue MinValue ≤ mid - 1 ≤ MaxValue
MinValue ≤ (inf + sup)/2 ≤ MaxValue
MinValue ≤ (inf + sup) ≤ MaxValue
Error checkingpublic int BinarySearch(int[] array, int value){ Contract.Requires(array != null); var inf = 0; var sup = array.Length - 1;
while (inf <= sup) {
var mid = (inf + sup) / 2; var midValue = array[mid];
if (midValue < value) inf = mid + 1; else if (midValue > value) sup = mid - 1; else return mid; }
return -1;}
array != null
MinValue ≤ array.Length -1 ≤ MaxValue
0 ≤ mid
array != null
mid < array.Length
MinValue ≤ mid + 1 ≤ MaxValue MinValue ≤ mid - 1 ≤ MaxValue
inf: [0, MaxValue], sup: [0, MaxValue], sup < array.Length
array != null
MinValue ≤ (inf + sup)/2 ≤ MaxValue
mid: [0, MaxValue)
MinValue ≤(inf + sup) ≤ MaxValue
Repairing overflowsLeverage the semantic information inferred by the static analysis
For instance, assume that 0 ≤ x, 0 ≤ y, 0 ≤ zThen x + y < z may overflowWe derive a non-overflowing expression like that
(x! + y!)? < z!
as 0 ≤ x, then –x cannot underflow
=y! < (z! +(– x!)!)?
as 0 ≤ z and 0 ≤ x, then z – x cannot underflow
=y! < (z! +(– x!)!)!
Extract methodpublic int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >= 0);
while (x != 0) x--;
return x;}
public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >= 0);
x = NewMethod(x);
return x;}
private static int NewMethod(int x){ while (x != 0) x--; return x;}
And the (modular) proof?public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >= 0);
while (x != 0) x--;
return x;}
public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >= 0);
x = NewMethod(x);
return x;}
private static int NewMethod(int x){ while (x != 0) x--; return x;}
Postcondition: okNo
overflow
Possible overflow
Postcondition
Violation?
CompletenessThe verification of the callee should still go through.Counterexample: Valid and safe contract, but not complete.public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >=0);
x = NewMethod(x);
return x;}
private static int NewMethod(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() <= x);
while (x != 0) x--; return x;}
Can’t prove
ensuresok
ValidityThe inferred contract should be valid.Counterexample:public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >=0);
x = NewMethod(x);
return x;}
private static int NewMethod(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>()==12345);
while (x != 0) x--; return x;}
okInvalid ensure
s
SafetyThe precondition of the extracted method should advertise possible errors.Counterexample:public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >=0);
x = NewMethod(x);
return x;}
private static int NewMethod(int x){ Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() == 0);
while (x != 0) x--; return x;}
ok Possible overflow
GeneralityThe inferred contract is the most general satisfying Validity, Safety, and Completeness.Counterexample: Valid, Safe, and Complete, but not General contract.public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >=0);
x = NewMethod(x);
return x;}
private static int NewMethod(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() == 0);
while (x != 0) x--; return x;}
ok ok
Requires too
strong
Our solutionValid, Safe, Complete, and General contract
public int Decrement(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 5); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() >=0);
x = NewMethod(x);
return x;}
private static int NewMethod(int x){ Contract.Requires(x >= 0); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<int>() == 0);
while (x != 0) x--; return x;}
ok ok
© 2013 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries.The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.