can_cast_expr<is_dynamic_object_exprt>: fix copy&paste error

[tautschnig]

This needs to check for the correct id.

• Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
• n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
• n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
• Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
• n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
• My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
• n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

[tautschnig]

@thomasspriggs FYI

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6742 (5c25144) into develop (69eded9) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #6742      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    76.86%   76.86%   -0.01%     
===========================================
  Files         1589     1589              
  Lines       183809   183814       +5     
===========================================
  Hits        141293   141293              
- Misses       42516    42521       +5     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/util/pointer_expr.h	80.68% <100.00%> (ø)
src/util/pointer_predicates.h	75.00% <0.00%> (-25.00%)	⬇️
...c/solvers/smt2_incremental/convert_expr_to_smt.cpp	69.02% <0.00%> (-0.44%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update bca3241...5c25144. Read the comment docs.

[thomasspriggs]

@thomasspriggs FYI

Thanks for letting me know. I should really write unit tests for these when I add them.

[tautschnig]

@thomasspriggs FYI

Thanks for letting me know. I should really write unit tests for these when I add them.

There seems to be code using it in the SMT back-end, so I'm actually more worried about test coverage for those bits.

[thomasspriggs]

@thomasspriggs FYI

Thanks for letting me know. I should really write unit tests for these when I add them.

There seems to be code using it in the SMT back-end, so I'm actually more worried about test coverage for those bits.

The single usage of it in src/solvers/smt2_incremental/convert_expr_to_smt.cpp will route to an UNIMPLEMENTED_FEATURE macro. Currently the difference with / without the fix in this PR is which UNIMPLEMENTED_FEATURE macro this routes to. So the fix in this PR has saved us some time when it comes to implementing / debugging / testing the conversion of this type of expression. Thanks again.