08eb78a5b2
This PR sets up the new integrated test/bench suite. It then migrates all benchmarks and some related tests to the new suite. There's also some documentation and some linting. For now, a lot of the old tests are left alone so this PR doesn't become even larger than it already is. Eventually, all tests should be migrated to the new suite though so there isn't a confusing mix of two systems.
202 lines
5 KiB
Text
202 lines
5 KiB
Text
/-!
|
||
# Suggestion tactics should not return invalid tactics
|
||
|
||
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/5407
|
||
|
||
The "suggestion" tactics `exact?`, `apply?`, `show_term`, and `rw?` should not suggest proof terms
|
||
that do not compile. They should use `expose_names` where possible to render suggestions valid. If
|
||
an invalid proof is generated, these tactics should instead provide users with appropriate feedback.
|
||
-/
|
||
|
||
/-! Discards unprintable implicit argument to lambda -/
|
||
inductive Odd : Nat → Prop
|
||
| one : Odd 1
|
||
| add_two : Odd n → Odd (n + 2)
|
||
|
||
theorem odd_iff {n : Nat} : Odd n ↔ n % 2 = 1 := by
|
||
refine ⟨fun h => by induction h <;> omega, ?_⟩
|
||
match n with
|
||
| 0 => simp
|
||
| 1 => exact fun _ => Odd.one
|
||
| n + 2 => exact fun _ => Odd.add_two (odd_iff.mpr (by omega))
|
||
|
||
/--
|
||
error: found a proof, but the corresponding tactic failed:
|
||
(expose_names; exact fun a => (fun {n} => odd_iff.mpr) a)
|
||
|
||
It may be possible to correct this proof by adding type annotations, explicitly specifying implicit arguments, or eliminating unnecessary function abstractions.
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example {n : Nat} : n % 2 = 1 → Odd n :=
|
||
by exact?
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-! Detects shadowed variables -/
|
||
opaque A : Type
|
||
opaque B : Type
|
||
opaque C : Prop
|
||
axiom imp : A → B → C
|
||
axiom a : A
|
||
axiom b : B
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this:
|
||
[apply] (expose_names; exact imp h_1 h)
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : C := by
|
||
have h : A := a
|
||
have h : B := b
|
||
exact?
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-! Detects lambdas with insufficient explicit binder types -/
|
||
inductive EqExplicit {α} : α → α → Prop
|
||
| intro : (a b : α) → a = b → EqExplicit a b
|
||
/--
|
||
error: found a proof, but the corresponding tactic failed:
|
||
(expose_names; exact EqExplicit.intro (fun f => (fun g x => g x) f) id rfl)
|
||
|
||
It may be possible to correct this proof by adding type annotations, explicitly specifying implicit arguments, or eliminating unnecessary function abstractions.
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : EqExplicit (fun (f : α → β) => (fun g x => g x) f) id := by
|
||
exact?
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-! `exact?` no longer uses `solve_by_elim` first, so it can't find local hypotheses.
|
||
However, star-indexed lemmas (like `Function.comp`) may find a proof via fallback. -/
|
||
#guard_msgs (drop info) in
|
||
example {P : Prop} : P → P := by
|
||
intro
|
||
exact?
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-! Does *not* suggest `expose_names` when the inaccessible name is an implicit argument. -/
|
||
opaque D : Nat → Type
|
||
axiom c_of_d {n : Nat} : D n → C
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this:
|
||
[apply] exact c_of_d x
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : (n : Nat) → D n → C := by
|
||
intro
|
||
intro x
|
||
exact?
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-! `apply?` logs info instead of erroring -/
|
||
opaque E : Prop
|
||
axiom option1 : A → E
|
||
axiom option2 {_ : B} : E
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this:
|
||
[apply] refine option1 ?_
|
||
-- Remaining subgoals:
|
||
-- ⊢ A
|
||
---
|
||
info: found a partial proof, but the corresponding tactic failed:
|
||
(expose_names; refine option2)
|
||
|
||
It may be possible to correct this proof by adding type annotations, explicitly specifying implicit arguments, or eliminating unnecessary function abstractions.
|
||
---
|
||
warning: declaration uses `sorry`
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : E := by apply?
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-!
|
||
This `apply?` erroneously reports a failure if suggesting tactics with dot-focusing notation instead
|
||
of parenthesized sequencing.
|
||
-/
|
||
opaque R : A → B → Prop
|
||
axiom rImp (b : B) : R a b → R a b
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this:
|
||
[apply] (expose_names; refine rImp b ?_)
|
||
-- Remaining subgoals:
|
||
-- ⊢ R a b
|
||
---
|
||
warning: declaration uses `sorry`
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : (b : B) → R a b := by
|
||
intro
|
||
apply?
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-! `show_term` exhibits the same behavior as `exact?` -/
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this:
|
||
[apply] (expose_names; exact h)
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : E → E := by
|
||
intro
|
||
show_term assumption
|
||
/--
|
||
info: found a partial proof, but the corresponding tactic failed:
|
||
(expose_names; refine option2)
|
||
|
||
It may be possible to correct this proof by adding type annotations, explicitly specifying implicit arguments, or eliminating unnecessary function abstractions.
|
||
---
|
||
error: unsolved goals
|
||
a✝ : B
|
||
⊢ B
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : B → E := by
|
||
intro
|
||
show_term apply option2
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this:
|
||
[apply] exact c_of_d d
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : (n : Nat) → D n → C := by
|
||
intro _ d
|
||
show_term apply c_of_d d
|
||
|
||
|
||
/-! `rw?` exhibits the same behavior as above. -/
|
||
namespace Rw
|
||
|
||
opaque A : Type
|
||
@[instance] axiom inst : Inhabited A
|
||
opaque Foo (a a' : A) : Prop
|
||
|
||
noncomputable opaque a : A
|
||
axiom eq (a' : A) : a = a'
|
||
|
||
/--
|
||
info: Try this:
|
||
[apply] (expose_names; rw [eq a'])
|
||
-- Foo a' a'
|
||
---
|
||
error: unsolved goals
|
||
a'✝ : A
|
||
⊢ Foo a'✝ a'✝
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : (a' : A) → Foo a a' := by
|
||
intro
|
||
rw?
|
||
|
||
noncomputable opaque a₁ : A
|
||
axiom eq_imp {a' : A} : a₁ = a'
|
||
/--
|
||
info: found an applicable rewrite lemma, but the corresponding tactic failed:
|
||
(expose_names; rw [eq_imp])
|
||
-- Foo a' a'
|
||
|
||
It may be possible to correct this proof by adding type annotations, explicitly specifying implicit arguments, or eliminating unnecessary function abstractions.
|
||
---
|
||
error: unsolved goals
|
||
a'✝ : A
|
||
⊢ Foo a'✝ a'✝
|
||
-/
|
||
#guard_msgs in
|
||
example : (a' : A) → Foo a₁ a' := by
|
||
intro
|
||
rw?
|