-
We use link_a (see the following comment) to deal with the client-side logic (e.g., generating txn workloads)
-
For each run, “histories” of txns (values read and/or written) for all clients are also collected and printed.
-
We then invoke the checker (the function run_oopsla_graph) in link_b to verify if the history violates transactional causal consistency.
Note that, since we are doing random testing (e.g., workloads are generated probabilistically), it’s hard (or even impossible) to reproduce a specific anomaly. However, we observed 5 to 8 violating histories per 100 histories with the setup posted. We believe that anomalies manifest with sufficiently large number of runs. Additionally, more concurrency is expected to give more anomalies, e.g., with more clients, less keys, more txns, more ops per txn, etc.
Please let me know if any question! Thanks!