Previously, if there was a `nightly-testing-YYYY-MM-DD` tag at Std, but
not Mathlib, we were erroneously proceeding with Mathlib CI, and hence
using a probably-broken version of Mathlib.
On Windows, we now compile all core `.o`s twice, once with and without
`dllexport`, for use in the shipped dynamic and static libraries,
respectively. On other platforms, we export always as before to avoid
the duplicate work.
---------
Co-authored-by: tydeu <tydeu@hatpress.net>
This adds the concept of **functional induction** to lean.
Derived from the definition of a (possibly mutually) recursive function,
a **functional
induction principle** is tailored to proofs about that function. For
example from:
```
def ackermann : Nat → Nat → Nat
| 0, m => m + 1
| n+1, 0 => ackermann n 1
| n+1, m+1 => ackermann n (ackermann (n + 1) m)
derive_functional_induction ackermann
```
we get
```
ackermann.induct (motive : Nat → Nat → Prop) (case1 : ∀ (m : Nat), motive 0 m)
(case2 : ∀ (n : Nat), motive n 1 → motive (Nat.succ n) 0)
(case3 : ∀ (n m : Nat), motive (n + 1) m → motive n (ackermann (n + 1) m) → motive (Nat.succ n) (Nat.succ m))
(x x : Nat) : motive x x
```
At the moment, the user has to ask for the functional induction
principle explicitly using
```
derive_functional_induction ackermann
```
The module docstring of `Lean/Meta/Tactic/FunInd.lean` contains more
details on the
design and implementation of this command.
More convenience around this (e.g. a `functional induction` tactic) will
follow eventually.
This PR includes a bunch of `PSum`/`PSigma` related functions in the
`Lean.Tactic.FunInd`
namespace. I plan to move these to `PackArgs`/`PackMutual` afterwards,
and do some cleaning
up as I do that.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
Co-authored-by: Leonardo de Moura <leomoura@amazon.com>
I deleted internal links that seemed to have the character of "TODO". I
think that the residual TODO is of little value, given that we plan a
big revamp and revision soon anyway, but I could do it some other way as
well.
Makes the LLVM triple of the current platform available to Lean code
towards a solution for #2754.
Defaults to the empty string if the compiler is not clang, which can
introduce some divergence between CI and local builds but should not be
noticeable in most cases and is not really possible to avoid.
Currently we create `lean-pr-testing-NNNN` branches at Mathlib
automatically for each Lean PR.
We don't automatically create one at Std; mostly simply because Std
fails less often, so it has been okay to do this manually as needed. It
is conceptually simpler, however, if this is done uniformly.
This PR:
* does not proceed with Std/Mathlib CI unless the appropriate
`nightly-testing-YYYY-MM-DD` tag exists at Std (like it already doesn't
proceed if that tag is missing at Mathlib)
* creates `lean-pr-testing-NNNN` branches at Std
* when it creates `lean-pr-testing-NNNN` branches at Mathlib, updates
the Std dependency to use the `lean-pr-testing-NNNN` branch at Std
- [x] depends on #3199
Note that because most users do not have write access at Std, in order
to make updates to `lean-pr-testing-NNNN` branches there they will need
to make PRs. These will be merged with a very low bar, and feel free to
ping me for assistance on this. If this is annoying we will automate.
Also, frequent contributors to Lean may ask @digama0 or @joehendrix for
write access in order to easily work on these branches.
This PR requires that we have a secret here with write access at Std.
I'm arranging that [on
zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/348111-std4/topic/bot.20access/near/416686090).
I will update the documentation at
https://leanprover-community.github.io/contribute/tags_and_branches.html
to reflect these changes when they are merged.
---------
Co-authored-by: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
As discussed during the FRO meeting 2024-01-18, we are changing the
`nightly-testing-YYYY-MM-DD` branches at Std and Mathlib from branches
to tags, in:
* https://github.com/leanprover/std4/pull/545
* https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/pull/9842
This PR updates the script that creates the `lean-pr-testing-NNNN`
branches at Mathlib so it is agnostic about whether
`nightly-testing-YYYY-MM-DD` will be a branch or a tag.
---------
Co-authored-by: Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de>
I keep messing things up, so time for some guard rails, so check them
using
[actionlint](https://github.com/raven-actions/actionlint).
This also runs [shellcheck](https://www.shellcheck.net/) on the files.
Shellcheck
is a bit picky about putting double quotes around variables, and will
flag many
cases where we know it’s safe, but why not simply always write the safer
variant.
Unfortunately, actionlint does not (yet) check `actions/github-script`
scripts, which is
unfortunate. Maybe they will in the future
(https://github.com/rhysd/actionlint/issues/389)
this didn’t recognize the new comments with an intro, and thus the bot
would post multiple comments.
The code was also out of sync with mathlib, fixing.
The `first(…)` in the `jq` program makes it more robust in case this
went wrong once (as on #3171) and there are now multiple PRs matching.
When looking at a PR I sometimes wonder which `nightly` release is this
based on, and is used for the mathlib testing.
Right now, the action uses a label (`toolchain-available`) for this, but
a label cannot easily carry more information.
It seems a rather simple way to communicate extra information is by
setting [commit
statuses](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/commits/statuses?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-a-commit-status);
with this change the following statuses will appear in the PR:
One could also use
[checks](https://docs.github.com/en/rest/checks/runs?apiVersion=2022-11-28#create-a-check-run)
to add more information, even with a nicely formatted markdown
description as in [this
example](https://github.com/nomeata/lean4/pull/1/checks?check_run_id=20165137082),
but it seems there you can’t set a summary that’s visible without an
extra click, and Github seems to associate these checks to “the first
workflow”, which is odd. So using statuses seems fine here.
Often one uses bots writing PR comments for this purpose, but that's a
bit noisy (extra notifications etc.), especially for stuff that happens
on every PR, but isn’t always interesting/actionable
If this works well, we can use this for more pieces of information, and
a link can be added as well.
given that we now use the PR description as the commit message, the PR
template should point that out. Also, a `# Summary` is relatively
strange in a commit message, so removed it.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
Getting the original PR number from a `workflow_run` cleanly and
reliably seems to be
basically impossible. See
<https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/25220> for a discussion.
So for now let’s go back to the working state, even though it’s
deprecated and throws warnings.
#3066 is causing CI failures, e.g.
[here](https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/actions/runs/7202184616/job/19619827364).
Although there are plenty of examples of using `await` in a Github
workflow script block, the error *seems* to be about this. This refactor
hopefully works around that, but I'm still uncertain of a root cause.
This fixe a surprisingly embarrassing bug introduced by me in
fa26d222cb (maybe while testing).
Enable more debug output while we are at it, to find out why sometimes
`context.payload.workflow_run.pull_requests[0]` is undefined.
the workflow is triggered not only by pull-request-CI-runs but also by
others. These should be skipped.
Also, no need to query the Github API to get the pull request number and
head sha, they are part of the payload, it seems.
In particular:
* Do not use deprecated `potiuk/get-workflow-origin`.
* Use a bare checkout to push PR to `pr-releases`
* Replace `script/most-recent-nightly-tag.sh` by a one-liner inside the
workflow, so that th workflow is self-contained
This Github action automatically updates `stage0` on `master` if
`src/stdlib_flags.h` and `stage0/src/stdlib_flags.h`
are out of sync there.
It bypasses the merge queue to be quick, this way, an out-of-date stage0
on on
master should only exist for a few minutes.
Needs access to a _deploy SSH key_ with write permission.
Now that we're, at least temporarily, relying more on the Nix CI,
replace some old hacks of mine with better solutions people have figured
out in the meantime.
Cachix support could probably be dropped at this point but it doesn't
really hurt.
CI will now run on _any_ manually added label; hard to avoid.
Fun fact: Because the `toolchain-available` label is added by a github
action with the default token, it will _not_ trigger the workflow. Lucky
coincidence.
Following up on #2986, stop running the test suite in ci.yml in quick
mode; the test suite is run in the Nix job, and we do not need to run it
twice.
With a cold nix cache, when `lean` is rebuilt, not much changes, as both
jobs take ~20mins. But when `lean` is unchanged, the nix build should
be faster, and shaving off the (currently) 4mins in the CI.yaml run
should get us to a green PR sooner.
Another benefit is that we get the PR release sooner and even get it
when the test suite fails, which can be useful if you want to test
mathlib or other things before fixing the lean test suite.
The goal of this change is to run a trimmed-down CI on PRs by default,
but allows opt-in the full CI as necessary.
### Specification
The CI workflow runs in “quick” mode if it was triggered from a pull
request, and that pull request does not have the `full-ci` label set.
In “quick” mode the build matrix contains fewer jobs. At the moment
only:
* Linux-release, to get the PR releases.
In non-quick mode everything should be as before.
### Implementation notes
I created a `configure` job that combines all the previous `set-` jobs,
I guess this is faster than firing up separate jobs.
The matrix is calculated in this job; this seems to be the cleanest way
to get a dynamic matrix going (experiments using `exclude` failed). The
downside is that the matrix is now in JSON rather than Yaml syntax. The
upside is that we can (later) make it’s calculation simpler, e.g. set
default `shell` values etc.
I was not able to make it so that CI runs when the `full-ci` label is
added, but don’t do anything otherwise. I think it can be done with
another workflow listening to `labeled` and then triggering this one,
but let’s do that separately. For now, add the label and then push (or
close and reopen).
The checks
```
if: matrix.build-stage2 || matrix.check-stage3
if: matrix.check-stage3
```
were dead code, we did not have these fields in the matrix anymore, so I
replaced them with
```
if: matrix.test-speedcenter
```
