Add warning for unknown attribute #207
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Gbury
force-pushed
the
unknown_annot_smtlib
branch
from
7056069 to
b9eae74
Compare
bclement-ocp
added a commit
to bclement-ocp/alt-ergo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2024
We are not compatible with the development release of Dolmen due to the `implicit` field added in [1]. Further, we currently require that Dolmen move trigger annotations in SMT-LIB format from the body of the formula to the quantifier itself, but this was removed in [2]. Since both of these will be part of the next release of dolmen, let us pre-emptively ensure that release won't break Alt-Ergo. [1] : Gbury/dolmen#199 [2] : Gbury/dolmen#207
bclement-ocp
added a commit
to bclement-ocp/alt-ergo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 8, 2024
In the native format, triggers are annotated on the quantifier itself, but in SMT-LIB format they are on the body of the quantifier. Alt-Ergo only looks on the quantifier, which was not a problem because Dolmen used to copy triggers from the body to the quantifier. Since Gbury/dolmen#207 Dolmen no longer performs this copy, which means that we ignore triggers in SMT-LIB format. This patch makes Alt-Ergo looks for trigger on both the quantifier and its body, to be compatible with both modes of operations. It also adds a specific test for this (although the Dolmen change breaks a bunch of existing tests already). This patch also bumps the Dolmen version for obvious reasons.
Halbaroth
pushed a commit
to OCamlPro/alt-ergo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 13, 2024
We are not compatible with the development release of Dolmen due to the `implicit` field added in [1]. Further, we currently require that Dolmen move trigger annotations in SMT-LIB format from the body of the formula to the quantifier itself, but this was removed in [2]. Since both of these will be part of the next release of dolmen, let us pre-emptively ensure that release won't break Alt-Ergo. [1] : Gbury/dolmen#199 [2] : Gbury/dolmen#207
bclement-ocp
added a commit
to bclement-ocp/alt-ergo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 13, 2024
In the native format, triggers are annotated on the quantifier itself, but in SMT-LIB format they are on the body of the quantifier. Alt-Ergo only looks on the quantifier, which was not a problem because Dolmen used to copy triggers from the body to the quantifier. Since Gbury/dolmen#207 Dolmen no longer performs this copy, which means that we ignore triggers in SMT-LIB format. This patch makes Alt-Ergo looks for trigger on both the quantifier and its body, to be compatible with both modes of operations. It also adds a specific test for this (although the Dolmen change breaks a bunch of existing tests already). This patch also bumps the Dolmen version for obvious reasons.
bclement-ocp
added a commit
to bclement-ocp/alt-ergo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 13, 2024
In the native format, triggers are annotated on the quantifier itself, but in SMT-LIB format they are on the body of the quantifier. Alt-Ergo only looks on the quantifier, which was not a problem because Dolmen used to copy triggers from the body to the quantifier. Since Gbury/dolmen#207 Dolmen no longer performs this copy, which means that we ignore triggers in SMT-LIB format. This patch makes Alt-Ergo looks for trigger on both the quantifier and its body, to be compatible with both modes of operations. It also adds a specific test for this (although the Dolmen change breaks a bunch of existing tests already). This patch also bumps the Dolmen version for obvious reasons.
bclement-ocp
added a commit
to bclement-ocp/alt-ergo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 13, 2024
Triggers are annotated on the body of the quantifier, but Alt-Ergo looks them up on the quantifier itself. This used to be OK, because Dolmen used to copy tags from the body to the quantifier. Since Gbury/dolmen#207 Dolmen no longer performs this copy, which means that we now ignore triggers (or rather, we use the triggers of the parent quantifier if it exists -- which is wrong). This patch looks for trigger on the body instead, to be compatible with future Dolmen releases. This patch also bumps the Dolmen version for obvious reasons.
bclement-ocp
added a commit
to OCamlPro/alt-ergo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2024
Triggers are annotated on the body of the quantifier, but Alt-Ergo looks them up on the quantifier itself. This used to be OK, because Dolmen used to copy tags from the body to the quantifier. Since Gbury/dolmen#207 Dolmen no longer performs this copy, which means that we now ignore triggers (or rather, we use the triggers of the parent quantifier if it exists -- which is wrong). This patch looks for trigger on the body instead, to be compatible with future Dolmen releases. This patch also bumps the Dolmen version for obvious reasons.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Instead of raising an
unbound iderror on unknown attributes, we know emit a warning. I'm still a bit undecided about whether the warning should be fatal or not.cc @bobot