Option that causes verification to fail for uncoverable cover statements

[adpaco-aws]

The RFC for cover statements mentioned:

We can consider adding an option that would cause verification to fail if a cover property was unsatisfiable or unreachable, e.g. --fail-uncoverable.

We are now aware that some users want this option.

It'd be great if we could include this option as part of the "more granular expectations" discussed here. Let's say we had a language to describe expectations for regular properties and cover statements. Then, this expectation is essentially that all cover statements are satisfied.

[adpaco-aws]

We've agreed on supplying the option as it was described in the RFC. In other words, we don't need to include as part of the "more granular expectations" work since it's unknown whether they would be useful or not.

The main problem with this option is how it interacts with #[kani::should_panic] and other attributes. There isn't a conflict per se (verification will be successful if both verification panics AND cover statements are covered), but I'm afraid that adding more options that modify the verification result complicates post-processing too much.