systematically avoid checking of input

[mantepse]

Trusting that the code is correct, there is no reason to check the input.

📚 Description

Closes #35212, #35212 (comment)

📝 Checklist

• I have made sure that the title is self-explanatory and the description concisely explains the PR.
• I have linked an issue or discussion.

⌛ Dependencies

[mantepse]

@tmiller, that's part two.

[mantepse]

Two questions:

1. should we rename check_input to check. check_input is only used in three methods:

combinat/skew_tableau.py:    def to_ribbon(self, check_input=True):
graphs/generic_graph.py:    def relabel(self, perm=None, inplace=True, return_map=False, check_input=True, complete_partial_function=True, immutable=None):
matrix/matrix2.pyx:    def jordan_form(self, base_ring=None, sparse=False, subdivide=True, transformation=False, eigenvalues=None, check_input=True):

2. I'd like to catch future performance regressions. In particular:

sage: P = Permutations(10)
sage: %%time
....: for pi in P:
....:     pass
CPU times: user 14.5 s, sys: 62 µs, total: 14.5 s
Wall time: 14.5 s

now gives

CPU times: user 8.43 s, sys: 0 ns, total: 8.43 s
Wall time: 8.43 s

[tscrim]

1. I think check is better than check_input (and more standard). +1 on changing it (albeit with a slightly annoying deprecation).
2. We can't really doctest our way to catching performance regressions (at least on that scale). We need a separate timings test package/files. I don't think this is worth the time/effort to do anything about it here.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 98.23% and project coverage change: +0.02 🎉

Comparison is base (52a81cb) 88.57% compared to head (c9be738) 88.59%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop   #35233      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    88.57%   88.59%   +0.02%     
===========================================
  Files         2140     2140              
  Lines       397273   397419     +146     
===========================================
+ Hits        351891   352111     +220     
+ Misses       45382    45308      -74     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_generic.py	93.25% <66.66%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/sage/interfaces/tachyon.py	87.93% <90.00%> (+0.43%)	⬆️
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/gal_reps.py	82.23% <90.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
src/sage/quadratic_forms/quadratic_form.py	90.26% <95.65%> (+0.16%)	⬆️
src/sage/combinat/dyck_word.py	96.78% <100.00%> (ø)
src/sage/combinat/permutation.py	96.65% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/sage/modular/quasimodform/element.py	99.20% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
src/sage/rings/qqbar.py	95.30% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
src/sage/schemes/affine/affine_morphism.py	90.33% <100.00%> (ø)
src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/BSD.py	43.75% <100.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️
... and 71 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[mantepse]

1. I think check is better than check_input (and more standard). +1 on changing it (albeit with a slightly annoying deprecation).

will do!

2. We can't really doctest our way to catching performance regressions (at least on that scale). We need a separate timings test package/files. I don't think this is worth the time/effort to do anything about it here.

I know, I was referring to #35046.

[mantepse]

There are very many test failures, but I cannot reproduce them locally :-(

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR is ready! 🎉
Built with commit: c9be738

[tscrim]

Thank you. LGTM. The tester now seems to be passing without any problems too.

[mantepse]

Thank you! I'm afraid you have to remove the needs-review label and add the positive-review label manually, right?

[tscrim]

Sorry, I forgot to do this. Done.

[vbraun]

merge conflict