This PR makes `#guard_msgs` to treat `trace` messages separate from
`info`, `warning` and `error`. It also introduce the ability to say
`#guard_msgs (pass info`, like `(drop info)` so far, and also adds
`(check info)` as the explicit form of `(info)`, for completeness.
Fixes#8266
Many of our tests in `tests/lean/run/` produce output from `#eval` (or
`#check`) statements, that is then ignored.
This PR tries to capture all the useful output using `#guard_msgs`. I've
only done a cursory check that the output is still sane --- there is a
chance that some "unchecked" tests have already accumulated regressions
and this just cements them!
In the other direction, I did identify two rotten tests:
* a minor one in `setStructInstNotation.lean`, where a comment says `Set
Nat`, but `#check` actually prints `?_`. Weird?
* `CompilerProbe.lean` is generating empty output, apparently indicating
that something is broken, but I don't know the signficance of this file.
In any case, I'll ask about these elsewhere.
(This started by noticing that a recent `grind` test file had an
untested `trace_state`, and then got carried away.)
The `conv` tactic tries to close “trivial” goals after itself. As of
now, it uses
`try rfl`, which means it can close goals that are only trivial after
reducing with
default transparency. This is suboptimal
* this can require a fair amount of unfolding, and possibly slow down
the proof
a lot. And the user cannot even prevent it.
* it does not match what `rw` does, and a user might expect the two to
behave the
same.
So this PR changes it to `with_reducible rfl`, matching `rw`’s behavior.
I considered `with_reducible eq_refl` to only solve trivial goals that
involve equality,
but not other relations (e.g. `Perm xs xs`), but a discussion on mathlib
pointed out
that it’s expected and desirable to solve more general reflexive goals:
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Closing.20after.20.60rw.60.2C.20.60conv.60.3A.20.60eq_refl.60.20instead.20of.20.60rfl.60/near/429851605
