Add missing check for async body when suggesting await on futures.
Currently the compiler suggests adding `.await` to resolve some type conflicts without checking if the conflict happens in an async context. This can lead to the compiler suggesting `.await` in function signatures where it is invalid. Example:
```rs
trait A {
fn a() -> impl Future<Output = ()>;
}
struct B;
impl A for B {
fn a() -> impl Future<Output = impl Future<Output = ()>> {
async { async { () } }
}
}
```
```
error[E0271]: expected `impl Future<Output = impl Future<Output = ()>>` to be a future that resolves to `()`, but it resolves to `impl Future<Output = ()>`
--> bug.rs:6:15
|
6 | fn a() -> impl Future<Output = impl Future<Output = ()>> {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `()`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> bug.rs:6:15
|
6 | fn a() -> impl Future<Output = impl Future<Output = ()>> {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: required by a bound in `A::{synthetic#0}`
--> bug.rs:2:27
|
2 | fn a() -> impl Future<Output = ()>;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ required by this bound in `A::{synthetic#0}`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
6 | fn a() -> impl Future<Output = impl Future<Output = ()>>.await {
| ++++++
```
The documentation of suggest_await_on_expect_found (`compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/error_reporting/infer/suggest.rs:156`) even mentions such a check but does not actually implement it.
This PR adds that check to ensure `.await` is only suggested within async blocks.
There were 3 unit tests whose expected output needed to be changed because they had the suggestion outside of async. One of them (`tests/ui/async-await/dont-suggest-missing-await.rs`) actually tests that exact problem but expects it to be present.
Thanks to `@llenck` for initially noticing the bug and helping with fixing it
Matthias Krüger
4496f23ca9