Rehome 26 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/` [#5 of Batch #2]
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that Kivooeo was using.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
When a tuple-struct is re-exported that has inaccessible fields at the `use` scope, the type's constructor cannot be accessed through that re-export. We now account for this case and extend the resulting resolution error. We also check if the constructor would be accessible directly, not through the re-export, and if so, we suggest using the full path instead.
```
error[E0423]: cannot initialize a tuple struct which contains private fields
--> $DIR/ctor-not-accessible-due-to-inaccessible-field-in-reexport.rs:12:33
|
LL | let crate::Foo(x) = crate::Foo(42);
| ^^^^^^^^^^
|
note: the type is accessed through this re-export, but the type's constructor is not visible in this import's scope due to private fields
--> $DIR/ctor-not-accessible-due-to-inaccessible-field-in-reexport.rs:3:9
|
LL | pub use my_mod::Foo;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the type can be constructed directly, because its fields are available from the current scope
|
LL | let crate::Foo(x) = crate::my_mod::Foo(42);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
Fix#133343.
Rehome 30 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/` [#2 of Batch #2]
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that `@Kivooeo` was using.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Rehome 30 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/` [#1 of Batch #2]
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that `@Kivooeo` was using.
r? `@jieyouxu`
When encountering an unmet trait bound, point at local type that doesn't implement the trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `Bar<T>: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:19
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
|
help: the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `Bar<T>`
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:1
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Rehome 33 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that ``@Kivooeo`` was using.
r? ``@jieyouxu``
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [2/N]
Some `tests/ui/issues/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/issues/`. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? ``@jieyouxu``
Adds the equivalent `nonpoison` types to the `poison::mutex` module.
These types and implementations are gated under the `nonpoison_mutex`
feature gate.
Also blesses the ui tests that now have a name conflicts (because these
types no longer have unique names). The full path distinguishes the
different types.
Co-authored-by: Aandreba <aandreba@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Trevor Gross <tmgross@umich.edu>
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [1/N]
I believe I’ve finally brought [my program](https://github.com/Kivooeo/test-manager) to life -- it now handles multiple test moves in one go: plain moves first, then a gentle touch on each file depends on given options. The process should be much smoother now.
Of course, I won’t rush through everything in a few days -- that would be unkind to `@Oneirical.` I’ll pace myself. And also I can't have more than one such PR because `issues.txt` will conflict with previous parts after merging them which is not fun as well.
This PR is just that: first commit - moves; second - regression comments and the occasional .stderr reblesses, also issue.txt and tidy changes. Nothing special, but progress nonetheless. This is for the purpose of preserving test file history during restructuring
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Add more test case to check if the false note related to sealed trait suppressed
Closesrust-lang/rust#143121
I started to fix the issue but I found that this one has already been addressed in this PR (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143431). I added an additional test to prove the reported thing has been resolved just in case.
I think we can discard this pull request if there's no need to add such kind of tests👍🏻
Use relative visibility when noting sealed trait to reduce false positive
Fixesrust-lang/rust#143392
I used relative visibility instead of just determining if it's public or not.
r? compiler
`tests/ui`: A New Order [4/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
r? ``@jieyouxu``
added stderr tag for commit which means it included generated stderr
Run wfcheck in one big loop instead of per module
Maybe we can merge this big loop in the future with the `par_hir_body_owners` call below and run typeck only on items that didn't fail wfcheck. For now let's just see if perf likes it, as it by itself should be beneficial to parallel rustc
Matthias Krüger