Group rfcs tests

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.

[WaffleLapkin]

This moves all RFC tests to tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-NNNN-title-title-title/...

I had to rename some tests due to conflicts, but otherwise this is just a move.

[rustbot]

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[oli-obk]

r=me after a rebase

@bors rollup

[WaffleLapkin]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit b694a03 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors rollup=never prone to merge conflicts

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again.

How do I rebase?

Assuming self is your fork and upstream is this repository, you can resolve the conflict following these steps:

1. git checkout group-rfcs-tests(switch to your branch)
2. git fetch upstream master(retrieve the latest master)
3. git rebase upstream/master -p(rebase on top of it)
4. Follow the on-screen instruction to resolve conflicts (check git status if you got lost).
5. git push self group-rfcs-tests --force-with-lease(update this PR)

You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial.

Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses git merge instead of git rebase which makes the PR commit history more difficult to read.

Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Cargo.lock conflict is handled during merge and rebase. This is normal, and you should still perform step 5 to update this PR.

Error message

Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/lit.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/for.rs
Removing tests/ui/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/enum.rs
Auto-merging src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[petrochenkov]

I don't think this is an improvement, the rfcs directory is artificial, meaningless by itself, and doesn't map to a WG or a set of people that work on a specific compiler area and could maintain the corresponding subset of tests.

I think specific rfc-NNNN-feature-name subdirectories should be moved to "semantically meaningful" subdirectories like privacy, or lexer, or auto-traits or whatever.

cc #73494

[WaffleLapkin]

@petrochenkov I agree that rfcs/ does not make much sense in the long run and we should sort things better, however in the meantime it makes sense to use the same style for all RFCs, even if eventually we won't have rfc-specific directories at all.

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit 18e016f has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 18e016f with merge e6d4725...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing e6d4725 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (e6d4725): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

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)	5.4%	[5.4%, 5.4%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

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

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 645.696s -> 647.875s (0.34%)

[petrochenkov]

@WaffleLapkin
It's not useful in a short turn either, it only creates churn in git history and adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.
Reverting this doesn't make sense because that would only add more churn, but I wish I r- this PR more explicitly to prevent it from landing.
Please, do not move any more tests mechanically, like in this PR.

It's not necessary to dismantle the rfc-NNNN-feature-name directories immediately, they can be moved to meaningful subdirectories as whole too.

[WaffleLapkin]

adds one more directory to the list of meaningless directories to be dismantled.

rfcs/ already existed, so this does not change the list.