tests/ui: A New Order [6/N]

[Kivooeo]

Note

Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.

Some tests/ui/ housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under tests/ui/. Part of #133895.

r? @jieyouxu

auxiliary tag means some changes in realted auxiliary file for test

[rustbot]

jieyouxu is not on the review rotation at the moment.
They may take a while to respond.

[Kivooeo]

btw, i don't like this complex.rs test, it feels like it tests nothing, so if you feels the same way we can remove it i guess

[workingjubilee]

can you leave a comment that points people back to ../cross-crate-method-reexport.rs?

[Kivooeo]

im not sure how exactly this comment should looks like, because i checked other auxiliary files in this directory on none of this files contains something like this

something like?

Original test is located in `tests/ui/cross-crate/cross-crate-method-reexport.rs`

[workingjubilee]

Yes, "used by" is also fine

[workingjubilee]

howso? pretend I am too lazy to go look at that issue (because I am)

[Kivooeo]

i guess your question is "how this test actually validates the early-bound behavior" so answer is the test proves early-bound behavior by confirming that partial specification fails with the right error message, if these were late-bound, the error messages might be different
it may be not the best way surely but what we have is what we have

(if that's not what your question was about, you could clarify what you meant)

[workingjubilee]

Oh I meant "how does it relate to that issue"?

[Kivooeo]

as far as i concerned (cuz issue is still open and problem was not fixed yet): the test is mainly to make sure the lifetime mechanism works right, which we'll need for a fix later on (since person who created this test said in their pr that issue was actually fixed, but in reality it doesnt, so this test more indirect relation with this issue)

[workingjubilee]

Suggested change

	//! Related to issue #30904.
	//! May become a non-error if we fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30904

[Kivooeo]

the errors will still remain after fix, because arguments number does not match the expected one, like here

    S::<'static>(&0, &0);
    //~^ ERROR struct takes 2 lifetime arguments

so i even think about to remove this entire mention of this issue, because it tests slightly different thing

fun part that we had a test for #30904, but it was removed and i cant find this, maybe it was renamed and fully rewritten but i find it hard to believe, here:
https://github.com/JohnTitor/rust/blob/74d45afbf5473d1b255629e786e074060dcc7ec2/src/test/ui/unboxed-closures/issue-30904.rs
if test was really deleted i guess i can add it, because this still true and what issue was about

    let _: for<'a> fn(&'a str) -> Str<'a> = Str;
    //~^ ERROR: mismatched types

[workingjubilee]

Oh, hm.

Yes I think removing the mention of the issue if it's that unrelated is better.

[Kivooeo]

well, yeah, it was deleted in this commit
564c78a#diff-85d65712084246fc61f287664eef63b0b25ba0a5c8b69a4a59a9454b6a3ebac4

but then issue was reopened and test was not brought back, i guess i can add it in separate pr

[Kivooeo]

also if you want and agree with changes, i guess, i can squash it so you could r+

[workingjubilee]

Yes, I'll sign off on this one.

[Kivooeo]

okie, i will ping you as soon as ci passed then

[workingjubilee]

Thanks!

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 610b7a3 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Kivooeo]

fixed the last error with stderr, not actually sure if it should be readded to bors as new commit

[workingjubilee]

oh.

yes.

@bors r-
@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 3380a91 has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.