Move src/test to the root

[albertlarsan68]

See MCP at rust-lang/compiler-team#573

There may be more changes needed.

The first commit is just the move of the files:
You can check that the first commit did not do anything else than renames by running

git diff --diff-filter=r -M100% <rust-lang remote>/master <first commit hash>

The output should be empty, because the filter excludes renames, and the match threshold for qualifying a rename is 100%.

The second one is mostly a "find and replace" of src/test to tests and whatever is needed to make CI pass.

What is left to do:

• Move directory
• Change references to src/test
  • Change references in-tree
  • Change references in submodules / out-of-tree docs
• Make CI pass:
  • Fix tidy
  • Fix tests
  • Bless tests if needed (shouldn't normally)
• Merge it !

[jyn514]

@albertlarsan68 in addition to fixing the CI failures, please also make sure you update src/bootstrap/test.rs to add .path("test/suite_name") to all the test suites. I think for now we should keepx test src/test/ui as an alias for x test test/ui, but we should definitely support the latter.

[petrochenkov]

I guess the only question is whether to keep the name test, or rename it to tests which is the cargo convention for integration tests.

[jyn514]

I would prefer tests, both for consistency with cargo and to avoid ambiguity with library/test in case we ever want to make x test tests work (i.e. run only compiletest suites and not unit tests or tidy).

[the8472]

This should split into multiple commits? one that only moves files and the rest for adjustments to the tools. That'll make it possible to review the code changes on GH.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #106472) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[albertlarsan68]

This PR will be very rebase-heavy, as CI refuses to run if there are merge conflicts, and almost every merged PR will modify tests.

[jyn514]

@albertlarsan68 you may want to temporarily disable the x86_64-gnu-tools job until #106449 lands to avoid CI spuriously failing while you're trying to fix other things.

Also, given the rebase problem, you may want to run the tests locally first instead of primarily using CI. If that's prohibitively slow I can look into getting you access to one of the cloud dev machines.

[albertlarsan68]

I just wanted to see if this x86_64-gnu-tools job builds, to verify that I did not break it, this is why I disabled the known failing x86_64-llvm-13 job.

Concerning the cloud dev machine, I am not in desperate need, but it will allow much faster iterations.
Having to rebase every time I want to test something allows to minimize bitrot.

[JohnTitor]

The diff is huge and I cannot check on web UI, but is there a tidy check that prevents contributors from adding a test to src/test?
A PR modifying an existing test now has a merge conflict e.g. #106167 but a PR adding a new test doesn't e.g. #106660, and I'm worried if a new test is added to src/test by accident.

[albertlarsan68]

No, there isn't.
Can you open an issue for it ?
I will add it.

[albertlarsan68]

Can you also open one to update the references in triagebot.toml if it isn't already done ?

[JohnTitor]

Sure, opened #106724.

[JohnTitor]

Can you also open one to update the references in triagebot.toml if it isn't already done ?

Couldn't find any reference:

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b22c152): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.3%	[0.3%, 0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.2%, -2.5%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.5%	[-4.5%, -4.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.9%	[-3.2%, -2.5%]	2

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

[jhpratt]

@albertlarsan68 Can you double check tidy? This error is definitely not accurate, as there are test files with the required lines.

[jyn514]

@jhpratt that error looks correct, the tests should be in tests/ui/restrictions, not tests/restrictions

[jhpratt]

Duh...thanks for the response!