Enable high-level invariants checking everywhere
ci/woodpecker/push/build Pipeline was successful
Details
ci/woodpecker/push/build Pipeline was successful
Details
By default invariants checking generates warnings.
If invariants_strict_checking theory option is enabled,
the checking generates errors.
- Update 2018-cicm-isabelle_dof-applications/IsaDofApplications.thy
and 2020-iFM-CSP/paper.thy to pass the checking of
the low level invariant checking function "check"
in scholarly_paper.thy,
which checks that the instances in a sequence of the same class
have a growing level.
For a sequence:
section*[intro::introduction]‹ Introduction ›
text*[introtext::introduction, level = "Some 1"]‹...›
introtext must have a level >= than intro.
- Bypass the checking of high-level invariants
when the class default_cid = "text",
the top (default) document class.
We want the class default_cid to stay abstract
and not have the capability to be defined with attribute,
invariants, etc.
Hence this bypass handles docitem without a class associated,
for example when you just want a document element to be referenceable
without using the burden of ontology classes.
ex: text*[sdf]\<open> Lorem ipsum @{thm refl}\<close>
The functions get_doc_class_global and get_doc_class_local trigger
an error when the class is "text" (default_cid),
then the functions like check_invariants which use it will fail
if the checking is enabled by default for all the theories.
This commit is contained in:
Nicolas Méric
parent
e414b97afb
commit
c0afe1105e
|
|
@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ abstract*[abs::abstract, keywordlist="[''Ontology'',''Ontological Modeling'',''I
|
|||
\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
section*[intro::introduction]\<open> Introduction \<close>
|
||||
text*[introtext::introduction]\<open>
|
||||
text*[introtext::introduction, level = "Some 1"]\<open>
|
||||
The linking of the \<^emph>\<open>formal\<close> to the \<^emph>\<open>informal\<close> is perhaps the
|
||||
most pervasive challenge in the digitization of knowledge and its
|
||||
propagation. This challenge incites numerous research efforts
|
||||
|
|
@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ declare_reference*[ontomod::text_section]
|
|||
declare_reference*[ontopide::text_section]
|
||||
declare_reference*[conclusion::text_section]
|
||||
(*>*)
|
||||
text*[plan::introduction]\<open> The plan of the paper is follows: we start by introducing the underlying
|
||||
text*[plan::introduction, level="Some 1"]\<open> The plan of the paper is follows: we start by introducing the underlying
|
||||
Isabelle system (@{text_section (unchecked) \<open>bgrnd\<close>}) followed by presenting the
|
||||
essentials of \<^isadof> and its ontology language (@{text_section (unchecked) \<open>isadof\<close>}).
|
||||
It follows @{text_section (unchecked) \<open>ontomod\<close>}, where we present three application
|
||||
|
|
@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ conclusions and discuss related work in @{text_section (unchecked) \<open>conclu
|
|||
|
||||
section*[bgrnd::text_section,main_author="Some(@{docitem ''bu''}::author)"]
|
||||
\<open> Background: The Isabelle System \<close>
|
||||
text*[background::introduction]\<open>
|
||||
text*[background::introduction, level="Some 1"]\<open>
|
||||
While Isabelle is widely perceived as an interactive theorem prover
|
||||
for HOL (Higher-order Logic)~@{cite "nipkow.ea:isabelle:2002"}, we
|
||||
would like to emphasize the view that Isabelle is far more than that:
|
||||
|
|
@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ figure*[architecture::figure,relative_width="100",src="''figures/isabelle-archit
|
|||
asynchronous communication between the Isabelle system and
|
||||
the IDE (right-hand side). \<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text*[blug::introduction]\<open> The Isabelle system architecture shown in @{figure \<open>architecture\<close>}
|
||||
text*[blug::introduction, level="Some 1"]\<open> The Isabelle system architecture shown in @{figure \<open>architecture\<close>}
|
||||
comes with many layers, with Standard ML (SML) at the bottom layer as implementation
|
||||
language. The architecture actually foresees a \<^emph>\<open>Nano-Kernel\<close> (our terminology) which
|
||||
resides in the SML structure \<^ML_structure>\<open>Context\<close>. This structure provides a kind of container called
|
||||
|
|
@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ For the antiquotation \inlineisar+\at{value "fac 5"}+ we assume the usual defin
|
|||
\inlineisar+fac+ in HOL.
|
||||
\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text*[anti]\<open> Thus, antiquotations can refer to formal content, can be type-checked before being
|
||||
text*[anti::introduction, level = "Some 1"]\<open> Thus, antiquotations can refer to formal content, can be type-checked before being
|
||||
displayed and can be used for calculations before actually being typeset. When editing,
|
||||
Isabelle's PIDE offers auto-completion and error-messages while typing the above
|
||||
\<^emph>\<open>semi-formal\<close> content. \<close>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ abstract*[abs, keywordlist="[\<open>Shallow Embedding\<close>,\<open>Process-Alg
|
|||
\<close>
|
||||
text\<open>\<close>
|
||||
section*[introheader::introduction,main_author="Some(@{docitem ''bu''}::author)"]\<open> Introduction \<close>
|
||||
text*[introtext::introduction]\<open>
|
||||
text*[introtext::introduction, level="Some 1"]\<open>
|
||||
Communicating Sequential Processes (\<^csp>) is a language
|
||||
to specify and verify patterns of interaction of concurrent systems.
|
||||
Together with CCS and LOTOS, it belongs to the family of \<^emph>\<open>process algebras\<close>.
|
||||
|
|
@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ processes \<open>Skip\<close> (successful termination) and \<open>Stop\<close> (
|
|||
\<open>\<T>(Skip) = \<T>(Stop) = {[]}\<close>.
|
||||
Note that the trace sets, representing all \<^emph>\<open>partial\<close> history, is in general prefix closed.\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text*[ex1::math_example, status=semiformal] \<open>
|
||||
text*[ex1::math_example, status=semiformal, level="Some 1"] \<open>
|
||||
Let two processes be defined as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
\<^enum> \<open>P\<^sub>d\<^sub>e\<^sub>t = (a \<rightarrow> Stop) \<box> (b \<rightarrow> Stop)\<close>
|
||||
|
|
@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ Roscoe and Brooks @{cite "Roscoe1992AnAO"} finally proposed another ordering, ca
|
|||
that completeness could at least be assured for read-operations. This more complex ordering
|
||||
is based on the concept \<^emph>\<open>refusals after\<close> a trace \<open>s\<close> and defined by \<open>\<R> P s \<equiv> {X | (s, X) \<in> \<F> P}\<close>.\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
Definition*[process_ordering, short_name="''process ordering''"]\<open>
|
||||
Definition*[process_ordering, level= "Some 2", short_name="''process ordering''"]\<open>
|
||||
We define \<open>P \<sqsubseteq> Q \<equiv> \<psi>\<^sub>\<D> \<and> \<psi>\<^sub>\<R> \<and> \<psi>\<^sub>\<M> \<close>, where
|
||||
\<^enum> \<open>\<psi>\<^sub>\<D> = \<D> P \<supseteq> \<D> Q \<close>
|
||||
\<^enum> \<open>\<psi>\<^sub>\<R> = s \<notin> \<D> P \<Rightarrow> \<R> P s = \<R> Q s\<close>
|
||||
|
|
@ -530,10 +530,10 @@ To handle termination better, we added two new processes \<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^
|
|||
\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
(*<*) (* a test ...*)
|
||||
text*[X22 ::math_content ]\<open>\<open>RUN A \<equiv> \<mu> X. \<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X\<close> \<close>
|
||||
text*[X32::"definition", mcc=defn]\<open>\<open>CHAOS A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X42]\<open>\<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (SKIP \<sqinter> STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X52::"definition"]\<open>\<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (SKIP \<sqinter> STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
text*[X22 ::math_content, level="Some 2" ]\<open>\<open>RUN A \<equiv> \<mu> X. \<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X\<close> \<close>
|
||||
text*[X32::"definition", level="Some 2", mcc=defn]\<open>\<open>CHAOS A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X42, level="Some 2"]\<open>\<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (SKIP \<sqinter> STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X52::"definition", level="Some 2"]\<open>\<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (SKIP \<sqinter> STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text\<open> The \<open>RUN\<close>-process defined @{math_content X22} represents the process that accepts all
|
||||
events, but never stops nor deadlocks. The \<open>CHAOS\<close>-process comes in two variants shown in
|
||||
|
|
@ -541,11 +541,11 @@ events, but never stops nor deadlocks. The \<open>CHAOS\<close>-process comes in
|
|||
stops or accepts any offered event, whereas \<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P\<close> can additionally terminate.\<close>
|
||||
(*>*)
|
||||
|
||||
Definition*[X2]\<open>\<open>RUN A \<equiv> \<mu> X. \<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X3]\<open>\<open>CHAOS A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X4]\<open>\<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (SKIP \<sqinter> STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close>\<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X5]\<open>\<open>DF A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (\<sqinter> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X)\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X6]\<open>\<open>DF\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. ((\<sqinter> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X) \<sqinter> SKIP)\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X2, level="Some 2"]\<open>\<open>RUN A \<equiv> \<mu> X. \<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X3, level="Some 2"]\<open>\<open>CHAOS A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X4, level="Some 2"]\<open>\<open>CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (SKIP \<sqinter> STOP \<sqinter> (\<box> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X))\<close>\<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X5, level="Some 2"]\<open>\<open>DF A \<equiv> \<mu> X. (\<sqinter> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X)\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X6, level="Some 2"]\<open>\<open>DF\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P A \<equiv> \<mu> X. ((\<sqinter> x \<in> A \<rightarrow> X) \<sqinter> SKIP)\<close> \<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text\<open>In the following, we denote \<open> \<R>\<P> = {DF\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P, DF, RUN, CHAOS, CHAOS\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P}\<close>.
|
||||
All five reference processes are divergence-free.
|
||||
|
|
@ -607,16 +607,16 @@ handled separately. One contribution of our work is establish their precise rela
|
|||
the Failure/Divergence Semantics of \<^csp>.\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
(* bizarre: Definition* does not work for this single case *)
|
||||
text*[X10::"definition"]\<open> \<open>deadlock\<^sub>-free P \<equiv> DF\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P UNIV \<sqsubseteq>\<^sub>\<F> P\<close> \<close>
|
||||
text*[X10::"definition", level="Some 2"]\<open> \<open>deadlock\<^sub>-free P \<equiv> DF\<^sub>S\<^sub>K\<^sub>I\<^sub>P UNIV \<sqsubseteq>\<^sub>\<F> P\<close> \<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text\<open>\<^noindent> A process \<open>P\<close> is deadlock-free if and only if after any trace \<open>s\<close> without \<open>\<surd>\<close>, the union of \<open>\<surd>\<close>
|
||||
and all events of \<open>P\<close> can never be a refusal set associated to \<open>s\<close>, which means that \<open>P\<close> cannot
|
||||
be deadlocked after any non-terminating trace.
|
||||
\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
Theorem*[T1, short_name="\<open>DF definition captures deadlock-freeness\<close>"]
|
||||
Theorem*[T1, short_name="\<open>DF definition captures deadlock-freeness\<close>", level="Some 2"]
|
||||
\<open> \hfill \break \<open>deadlock_free P \<longleftrightarrow> (\<forall>s\<in>\<T> P. tickFree s \<longrightarrow> (s, {\<surd>}\<union>events_of P) \<notin> \<F> P)\<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X11]\<open> \<open>livelock\<^sub>-free P \<equiv> \<D> P = {} \<close> \<close>
|
||||
Definition*[X11, level="Some 2"]\<open> \<open>livelock\<^sub>-free P \<equiv> \<D> P = {} \<close> \<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text\<open> Recall that all five reference processes are livelock-free.
|
||||
We also have the following lemmas about the
|
||||
|
|
@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ text\<open>
|
|||
Finally, we proved the following theorem that confirms the relationship between the two vital
|
||||
properties:
|
||||
\<close>
|
||||
Theorem*[T2, short_name="''DF implies LF''"]
|
||||
Theorem*[T2, short_name="''DF implies LF''", level="Some 2"]
|
||||
\<open> \<open>deadlock_free P \<longrightarrow> livelock_free P\<close> \<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text\<open>
|
||||
|
|
@ -797,7 +797,7 @@ This normal form is closed under deterministic and communication operators.
|
|||
The advantage of this format is that we can mimick the well-known product automata construction
|
||||
for an arbitrary number of synchronized processes under normal form.
|
||||
We only show the case of the synchronous product of two processes: \<close>
|
||||
text*[T3::"theorem", short_name="\<open>Product Construction\<close>"]\<open>
|
||||
text*[T3::"theorem", short_name="\<open>Product Construction\<close>", level="Some 2"]\<open>
|
||||
Parallel composition translates to normal form:
|
||||
@{cartouche [display,indent=5]\<open>(P\<^sub>n\<^sub>o\<^sub>r\<^sub>m\<lbrakk>\<tau>\<^sub>1,\<upsilon>\<^sub>1\<rbrakk> \<sigma>\<^sub>1) || (P\<^sub>n\<^sub>o\<^sub>r\<^sub>m\<lbrakk>\<tau>\<^sub>2,\<upsilon>\<^sub>2\<rbrakk> \<sigma>\<^sub>2) =
|
||||
P\<^sub>n\<^sub>o\<^sub>r\<^sub>m\<lbrakk>\<lambda>(\<sigma>\<^sub>1,\<sigma>\<^sub>2). \<tau>\<^sub>1 \<sigma>\<^sub>1 \<inter> \<tau>\<^sub>2 \<sigma>\<^sub>2 , \<lambda>(\<sigma>\<^sub>1,\<sigma>\<^sub>2).\<lambda>e.(\<upsilon>\<^sub>1 \<sigma>\<^sub>1 e, \<upsilon>\<^sub>2 \<sigma>\<^sub>2 e)\<rbrakk> (\<sigma>\<^sub>1,\<sigma>\<^sub>2)\<close>}
|
||||
|
|
@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ states via the closure \<open>\<RR>\<close>, which is defined inductively over:
|
|||
Thus, normalization leads to a new characterization of deadlock-freeness inspired
|
||||
from automata theory. We formally proved the following theorem:\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
text*[T4::"theorem", short_name="\<open>DF vs. Reacheability\<close>"]
|
||||
text*[T4::"theorem", short_name="\<open>DF vs. Reacheability\<close>", level="Some 2"]
|
||||
\<open> If each reachable state \<open>s \<in> (\<RR> \<tau> \<upsilon>)\<close> has outgoing transitions,
|
||||
the \<^csp> process is deadlock-free:
|
||||
@{cartouche [display,indent=10] \<open>\<forall>\<sigma> \<in> (\<RR> \<tau> \<upsilon> \<sigma>\<^sub>0). \<tau> \<sigma> \<noteq> {} \<Longrightarrow> deadlock_free (P\<^sub>n\<^sub>o\<^sub>r\<^sub>m\<lbrakk>\<tau>,\<upsilon>\<rbrakk> \<sigma>\<^sub>0)\<close>}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1041,10 +1041,11 @@ text\<open>
|
|||
Ontological classes as described so far are too liberal in many situations.
|
||||
There is a first high-level syntax implementation for class invariants.
|
||||
These invariants can be checked when an instance of the class is defined.
|
||||
To enable the checking of the invariants, the \<^boxed_theory_text>\<open>invariants_checking\<close>
|
||||
To enable the strict checking of the invariants,
|
||||
the \<^boxed_theory_text>\<open>invariants_strict_checking\<close>
|
||||
theory attribute must be set:
|
||||
@{boxed_theory_text [display]\<open>
|
||||
declare[[invariants_checking = true]]\<close>}
|
||||
declare[[invariants_strict_checking = true]]\<close>}
|
||||
|
||||
For example, let's define the following two classes:
|
||||
@{boxed_theory_text [display]\<open>
|
||||
|
|
@ -1104,6 +1105,12 @@ text\<open>
|
|||
All specified constraints are already checked in the IDE of \<^dof> while editing.
|
||||
The invariant \<^boxed_theory_text>\<open>author_finite\<close> enforces that the user sets the
|
||||
\<^boxed_theory_text>\<open>authored_by\<close> set.
|
||||
The invariants \<^theory_text>\<open>author_finite\<close> and \<^theory_text>\<open>establish_defined\<close> can not be checked directly
|
||||
and need a little help.
|
||||
We can set the \<open>invariants_checking_with_tactics\<close> theory attribute to help the checking.
|
||||
It will enable a basic tactic, using unfold and auto:
|
||||
@{boxed_theory_text [display]\<open>
|
||||
declare[[invariants_checking_with_tactics = true]]\<close>}
|
||||
There are still some limitations with this high-level syntax.
|
||||
For now, the high-level syntax does not support monitors (see \<^technical>\<open>sec:monitors\<close>).
|
||||
For example, one would like to delay a final error message till the
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -813,8 +813,8 @@ fun print_doc_class_tree ctxt P T =
|
|||
val (strict_monitor_checking, strict_monitor_checking_setup)
|
||||
= Attrib.config_bool \<^binding>\<open>strict_monitor_checking\<close> (K false);
|
||||
|
||||
val (invariants_checking, invariants_checking_setup)
|
||||
= Attrib.config_bool \<^binding>\<open>invariants_checking\<close> (K false);
|
||||
val (invariants_strict_checking, invariants_strict_checking_setup)
|
||||
= Attrib.config_bool \<^binding>\<open>invariants_strict_checking\<close> (K false);
|
||||
|
||||
val (invariants_checking_with_tactics, invariants_checking_with_tactics_setup)
|
||||
= Attrib.config_bool \<^binding>\<open>invariants_checking_with_tactics\<close> (K false);
|
||||
|
|
@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ end (* struct *)
|
|||
\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
setup\<open>DOF_core.strict_monitor_checking_setup
|
||||
#> DOF_core.invariants_checking_setup
|
||||
#> DOF_core.invariants_strict_checking_setup
|
||||
#> DOF_core.invariants_checking_with_tactics_setup\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
section\<open> Syntax for Term Annotation Antiquotations (TA)\<close>
|
||||
|
|
@ -948,6 +948,7 @@ structure ISA_core =
|
|||
struct
|
||||
|
||||
fun err msg pos = error (msg ^ Position.here pos);
|
||||
fun warn msg pos = warning (msg ^ Position.here pos);
|
||||
|
||||
fun check_path check_file ctxt dir (name, pos) =
|
||||
let
|
||||
|
|
@ -1600,11 +1601,12 @@ fun check_invariants thy oid =
|
|||
end
|
||||
fun check_invariants' ((inv_name, pos), term) =
|
||||
let val ctxt = Proof_Context.init_global thy
|
||||
val trivial_true = \<^term>\<open>True\<close> |> HOLogic.mk_Trueprop |> Thm.cterm_of ctxt |> Thm.trivial
|
||||
val evaluated_term = value ctxt term
|
||||
handle ERROR e =>
|
||||
if (String.isSubstring "Wellsortedness error" e)
|
||||
andalso (Config.get_global thy DOF_core.invariants_checking_with_tactics)
|
||||
then (warning("Invariants checking uses proof tactics");
|
||||
then (warning("Invariants checking uses proof tactics");
|
||||
let val prop_term = HOLogic.mk_Trueprop term
|
||||
val thms = Proof_Context.get_thms ctxt (inv_name ^ def_suffixN)
|
||||
(* Get the make definition (def(1) of the record) *)
|
||||
|
|
@ -1614,22 +1616,37 @@ fun check_invariants thy oid =
|
|||
(K ((unfold_tac ctxt thms') THEN (auto_tac ctxt)))
|
||||
|> Thm.close_derivation \<^here>
|
||||
handle ERROR e =>
|
||||
ISA_core.err ("Invariant "
|
||||
let
|
||||
val msg_intro = "Invariant "
|
||||
^ inv_name
|
||||
^ " failed to be checked using proof tactics"
|
||||
^ " with error: "
|
||||
^ e) pos
|
||||
^ " with error:\n"
|
||||
in
|
||||
if Config.get_global thy DOF_core.invariants_strict_checking
|
||||
then ISA_core.err (msg_intro ^ e) pos
|
||||
else (ISA_core.warn (msg_intro ^ e) pos; trivial_true) end
|
||||
(* If Goal.prove does not fail, then the evaluation is considered True,
|
||||
else an error is triggered by Goal.prove *)
|
||||
in @{term True} end)
|
||||
else ISA_core.err ("Fail to check invariant "
|
||||
^ inv_name
|
||||
^ ". Try to activate invariants_checking_with_tactics.") pos
|
||||
in (if evaluated_term = \<^term>\<open>True\<close>
|
||||
then ((inv_name, pos), term)
|
||||
else ISA_core.err ("Invariant " ^ inv_name ^ " violated") pos)
|
||||
else \<^term>\<open>True \<Longrightarrow> True\<close>
|
||||
in case evaluated_term of
|
||||
\<^term>\<open>True\<close> => ((inv_name, pos), term)
|
||||
| \<^term>\<open>True \<Longrightarrow> True\<close> =>
|
||||
let val msg_intro = "Fail to check invariant "
|
||||
^ inv_name
|
||||
^ ".\nMaybe you can try "
|
||||
^ "to activate invariants_checking_with_tactics\n"
|
||||
^ "if your invariant is checked against doc_class algebraic "
|
||||
^ "types like 'doc_class list' or 'doc_class set'"
|
||||
in if Config.get_global thy DOF_core.invariants_strict_checking
|
||||
then ISA_core.err (msg_intro) pos
|
||||
else (ISA_core.warn (msg_intro) pos; ((inv_name, pos), term)) end
|
||||
| _ => let val msg_intro = "Invariant " ^ inv_name ^ " violated"
|
||||
in if Config.get_global thy DOF_core.invariants_strict_checking
|
||||
then ISA_core.err msg_intro pos
|
||||
else (ISA_core.warn msg_intro pos; ((inv_name, pos), term)) end
|
||||
end
|
||||
val _ = map check_invariants' inv_and_apply_list
|
||||
val _ = map check_invariants' inv_and_apply_list
|
||||
in thy end
|
||||
|
||||
fun create_and_check_docitem is_monitor {is_inline=is_inline} oid pos cid_pos doc_attrs thy =
|
||||
|
|
@ -1639,20 +1656,19 @@ fun create_and_check_docitem is_monitor {is_inline=is_inline} oid pos cid_pos do
|
|||
(* creates a markup label for this position and reports it to the PIDE framework;
|
||||
this label is used as jump-target for point-and-click feature. *)
|
||||
val cid_long = check_classref is_monitor cid_pos thy
|
||||
val default_cid = cid_long = DOF_core.default_cid
|
||||
val vcid = case cid_pos of NONE => NONE
|
||||
| SOME (cid,_) => if (DOF_core.is_virtual cid thy)
|
||||
then SOME (DOF_core.parse_cid_global thy cid)
|
||||
else NONE
|
||||
val value_terms = if (cid_long = DOF_core.default_cid)
|
||||
val value_terms = if default_cid
|
||||
then let
|
||||
val undefined_value = Free ("Undefined_Value", \<^Type>\<open>unit\<close>)
|
||||
val undefined_value = Free ("Undefined_Value", \<^Type>\<open>unit\<close>)
|
||||
in (undefined_value, undefined_value) end
|
||||
(*
|
||||
Handle initialization of docitem without a class associated,
|
||||
for example when you just want a document element to be referenceable
|
||||
without using the burden of ontology classes.
|
||||
ex: text*[sdf]\<open> Lorem ipsum @{thm refl}\<close>
|
||||
*)
|
||||
(* Handle initialization of docitem without a class associated,
|
||||
for example when you just want a document element to be referenceable
|
||||
without using the burden of ontology classes.
|
||||
ex: text*[sdf]\<open> Lorem ipsum @{thm refl}\<close> *)
|
||||
else let
|
||||
val defaults_init = create_default_object thy cid_long
|
||||
fun conv (na, _(*ty*), term) =(Binding.name_of na, Binding.pos_of na, "=", term);
|
||||
|
|
@ -1684,9 +1700,15 @@ fun create_and_check_docitem is_monitor {is_inline=is_inline} oid pos cid_pos do
|
|||
o Context.Theory) thy; thy)
|
||||
else thy)
|
||||
|> (fn thy => (check_inv thy; thy))
|
||||
|> (fn thy => if Config.get_global thy DOF_core.invariants_checking = true
|
||||
then check_invariants thy oid
|
||||
else thy)
|
||||
(* Bypass checking of high-level invariants when the class default_cid = "text",
|
||||
the top (default) document class.
|
||||
We want the class default_cid to stay abstract
|
||||
and not have the capability to be defined with attribute, invariants, etc.
|
||||
Hence this bypass handles docitem without a class associated,
|
||||
for example when you just want a document element to be referenceable
|
||||
without using the burden of ontology classes.
|
||||
ex: text*[sdf]\<open> Lorem ipsum @{thm refl}\<close> *)
|
||||
|> (fn thy => if default_cid then thy else check_invariants thy oid)
|
||||
end
|
||||
|
||||
end (* structure Docitem_Parser *)
|
||||
|
|
@ -1870,9 +1892,7 @@ fun update_instance_command (((oid:string,pos),cid_pos),
|
|||
in
|
||||
thy |> DOF_core.update_value_global oid def_trans_input_term def_trans_value
|
||||
|> check_inv
|
||||
|> (fn thy => if Config.get_global thy DOF_core.invariants_checking = true
|
||||
then Value_Command.Docitem_Parser.check_invariants thy oid
|
||||
else thy)
|
||||
|> (fn thy => Value_Command.Docitem_Parser.check_invariants thy oid)
|
||||
end
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -1932,9 +1952,7 @@ fun close_monitor_command (args as (((oid:string,pos),cid_pos),
|
|||
in thy |> (fn thy => (check_lazy_inv thy; thy))
|
||||
|> update_instance_command args
|
||||
|> (fn thy => (check_inv thy; thy))
|
||||
|> (fn thy => if Config.get_global thy DOF_core.invariants_checking = true
|
||||
then Value_Command.Docitem_Parser.check_invariants thy oid
|
||||
else thy)
|
||||
|> (fn thy => Value_Command.Docitem_Parser.check_invariants thy oid)
|
||||
|> delete_monitor_entry
|
||||
end
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ which we formalize into:\<close>
|
|||
doc_class text_section = text_element +
|
||||
main_author :: "author option" <= None
|
||||
fixme_list :: "string list" <= "[]"
|
||||
level :: "int option" <= "None"
|
||||
level :: "int option" <= "None"
|
||||
(* this attribute enables doc-notation support section* etc.
|
||||
we follow LaTeX terminology on levels
|
||||
part = Some -1
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ text\<open>
|
|||
theory attribute must be set:\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
declare[[invariants_checking = true]]
|
||||
declare[[invariants_strict_checking = true]]
|
||||
|
||||
text\<open>For example, let's define the following two classes:\<close>
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -144,6 +144,6 @@ value*\<open>evidence @{result \<open>resultProof\<close>} = evidence @{result \
|
|||
|
||||
declare[[invariants_checking_with_tactics = false]]
|
||||
|
||||
declare[[invariants_checking = false]]
|
||||
declare[[invariants_strict_checking = false]]
|
||||
|
||||
end
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue