`tests/ui`: A New Order [27/N]
> [!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 rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? ``@tgross35``
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `t`
--> $DIR/use_of_moved_value_copy_suggestions.rs:7:9
|
LL | fn duplicate_t<T>(t: T) -> (T, T) {
| - move occurs because `t` has type `T`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
...
LL | (t, t)
| - ^ value used here after move
| |
| value moved here
|
help: if `T` implemented `Clone`, you could clone the value
--> $DIR/use_of_moved_value_copy_suggestions.rs:4:16
|
LL | fn duplicate_t<T>(t: T) -> (T, T) {
| ^ consider constraining this type parameter with `Clone`
...
LL | (t, t)
| - you could clone this value
help: consider restricting type parameter `T`
|
LL | fn duplicate_t<T: Copy>(t: T) -> (T, T) {
| ++++++
```
The `help` is new. On ADTs, we also extend the output with span labels:
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of static item `FOO`
--> $DIR/issue-17718-static-move.rs:6:14
|
LL | let _a = FOO;
| ^^^ move occurs because `FOO` has type `Foo`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
|
note: if `Foo` implemented `Clone`, you could clone the value
--> $DIR/issue-17718-static-move.rs:1:1
|
LL | struct Foo;
| ^^^^^^^^^^ consider implementing `Clone` for this type
...
LL | let _a = FOO;
| --- you could clone this value
help: consider borrowing here
|
LL | let _a = &FOO;
| +
```
When encountering trait bound errors that satisfy some heuristics that
tell us that the relevant trait for the user comes from the root
obligation and not the current obligation, we use the root predicate for
the main message.
This allows to talk about "X doesn't implement Pattern<'_>" over the
most specific case that just happened to fail, like "char doesn't
implement Fn(&mut char)" in
`tests/ui/traits/suggest-dereferences/root-obligation.rs`
The heuristics are:
- the type of the leaf predicate is (roughly) the same as the type
from the root predicate, as a proxy for "we care about the root"
- the leaf trait and the root trait are different, so as to avoid
talking about `&mut T: Trait` and instead remain talking about
`T: Trait` instead
- the root trait is not `Unsize`, as to avoid talking about it in
`tests/ui/coercion/coerce-issue-49593-box-never.rs`.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `&char: Pattern<'_>` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/root-obligation.rs:6:38
|
LL | .filter(|c| "aeiou".contains(c))
| -------- ^ the trait `Fn<(char,)>` is not implemented for `&char`, which is required by `&char: Pattern<'_>`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
= note: required for `&char` to implement `FnOnce<(char,)>`
= note: required for `&char` to implement `Pattern<'_>`
note: required by a bound in `core::str::<impl str>::contains`
--> $SRC_DIR/core/src/str/mod.rs:LL:COL
help: consider dereferencing here
|
LL | .filter(|c| "aeiou".contains(*c))
| +
```
Fix#79359, fix#119983, fix#118779, cc #118415 (the suggestion needs
to change).
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
Treat `str` as containing `[u8]` for auto trait purposes
Wanted to gauge ``@rust-lang/lang`` and ``@rust-lang/types`` teams' thoughts on treating `str` as "containing" a `[u8]` slice for auto-trait purposes.
``@dtolnay`` brought this up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13231#issuecomment-1399386472 as a blocker for future `str` type librarification, and I think it's both a valid concern and very easy to fix. I'm interested in actually doing that `str` type librarification (#107939), but this probably should be considered in the mean time regardless of that PR.
r? types for the impl, though this definitely needs an FCP.
