Fix ICE caused by invalid spans for shrink_file
Fixesrust-lang/rust#148732
There are two issues in this function:
1. the original issue is caused by a typo error, which is fixed in the first commit
2. another different ice(Patch span `7..7` is beyond the end of buffer `0`) will be reported after fixing the first one, is caused by spans cross file boundaries due to macro expansion. It is fixed in the second commit.
r? `@nnethercote`
edited: also fixesrust-lang/rust#148684, added a new testcase for it in the last commit.
Rehome 30 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/` [#3 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/` [#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`
Detect struct construction with private field in field with default
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:19:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the type `Priv1` of field `field1` is private, but you can construct the default value defined for it in `S` using `..` in the struct initializer expression
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Rehome 32 `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`
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:25:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the field `field1` you're trying to set has a default value, you can use `..` to use it
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
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 [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 a test showing `#![feature(default_field_values)]` using `#[const_trait] trait Default` (`#![feature(const_default)]` + `#![feature(const_trait_impl)]`).
Make error message for missing fields with `..` and without `..` more consistent
When `..` is not present, we say "missing field `bar` in initializer", but when it is present we say "missing mandatory field `bar`". I don't see why the primary error message should change, b/c the root cause is the same.
Let's harmonize these error messages and instead use a label to explain that `..` is required b/c it's not defaulted.
r? estebank
Try to point of macro expansion from resolver and method errors if it involves macro var
In the case that a macro caller passes an identifier into a macro generating a path or method expression, point out that identifier in the context of the *macro* so it's a bit more clear how the macro is involved in causing the error.
r? ``````````@estebank`````````` or reassign
