test: migrate check_cfg to snapbox

[eth3lbert]

What does this PR try to resolve?

Part of #14039.

Migrate following to snapbox:

• tests/testsuite/check_cfg.rs

---

This commit allow deprecation for most of the tests currently in this file. This is because the tests either use does_not_contain or perform multiple contains assertion for single tool with macro x!.

Here are some potential options to further eliminate the deprecation:

1. Remove the x! macro and replace the it with str![] for both Windows and non-Windows platforms.
2. Modify the x! macro to only generate the --check-cfg part for different platforms and manually compose it with format!.

[rustbot]

r? @ehuss

rustbot has assigned @ehuss.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[eth3lbert]

r? @epage

[eth3lbert]

Failed in CI with the following:

---- expected: tests/testsuite/lto.rs:372:13
++++ actual:   stderr
   1    1 | [COMPILING] foo v0.0.0 ([ROOT]/foo)
   2    2 | [RUNNING] `rustc --crate-name a [..]-C lto [..]`
   3    3 | [RUNNING] `rustc --crate-name b [..]-C lto [..]`
   4    4 | [RUNNING] `rustc --crate-name foo [..]-C lto [..]--test [..]`
   5    5 | [RUNNING] `rustc --crate-name foo [..]--crate-type bin [..]-C lto [..]`
   6      - [FINISHED] `release` profile [optimized] target(s) in [ELAPSED]s
   7    6 | [RUNNING] `[ROOT]/foo/target/release/deps/foo-[HASH][EXE]`
   8    7 | [RUNNING] `[ROOT]/foo/target/release/deps/a-[HASH][EXE]`
   9    8 | [RUNNING] `[ROOT]/foo/target/release/deps/b-[HASH][EXE]`
        9 + [FINISHED] `release` profile [optimized] target(s) in 1m 00s

This should be resolved once #14233 is merged.

[epage]

#14233 is now merged.

[epage]

I think the does_not_contains could be removed. If we were passing -Z, it would fail as this test runs on stable

[epage]

Remove the x! macro and replace the it with str![] for both Windows and non-Windows platforms.

Overall, not a fan of x!.

[epage]

To add though, we can merge this now-ish (maybe remove some of the weirder does_not_contains) and further improve it in follow up PRs, rather than do it all at once.

[eth3lbert]

To add though, we can merge this now-ish (maybe remove some of the weirder does_not_contains) and further improve it in follow up PRs, rather than do it all at once.

I remove all the -Z. However, if we only want to remove the one within the features_doctest function, please let me know!

[Urgau]

The x! macro was added very early the development of the feature in Cargo and has always been awkward, it was meant as a simple way to create the cmd argument without relying to much on the actual argument; in part because the syntax was still evolving and changing. It also was a convenient way to handle the Windows vs non-Windows escaping.

It has serve us well, but since then many things have evolved, --check-cfg is now stable, Cargo has a new testing engine...

In other words, feel free to remove the macro.

[eth3lbert]

The x! macro was added very early the development of the feature in Cargo and has always been awkward, it was meant as a simple way to create the cmd argument without relying to much on the actual argument; in part because the syntax was still evolving and changing. It also was a convenient way to handle the Windows vs non-Windows escaping.

It has serve us well, but since then many things have evolved, --check-cfg is now stable, Cargo has a new testing engine...

In other words, feel free to remove the macro.

Thanks for the explanation and the addition from the author's perspective.

[epage]

I'll merge as-is and we can handle x! in a follow up

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 5a09fcb has been approved by epage

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 5a09fcb with merge 0e2ef80...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: epage
Pushing 0e2ef80 to master...