Updated E0560 to new error format

[aclarry]

Added a small bit of code to add a label for E0560.

Also renamed src/test/compile-fail/E560.rs file to E0560.rs (not sure why it was named E560).
Updated all test cases which check this error.

Closes #36199

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Aatch (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[Cobrand]

@aclarry As expected, your PR for E0560 and mine for E0559 are in conflict. You have to rebase your PR onto master so there are no conflicts anymore.

By the way, @jonathandturner takes care of the "update to new format" thing, so you have to tell rust-highfive that he is the assignee, by doing like so :
r? @jonathandturner
(Of course that won't do anything since only the creator of the PR can do that)

Otherwise your PR will probably go unnoticed for awhile :)

[aclarry]

@Cobrand thanks for the heads up, I thought I merged in your changes, but apparently not :)

r? @jonathandturner

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #36331) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[sophiajt]

@aclarry - looks good. After you fix up the conflict, you can ping me and we can give it a go.

[aclarry]

@jonathandturner I'm running into a bit of a conflict with E0559. Specifically, which behaviour do we want when we can also suggest a field name?

1. Don't include E0560 label

error[E0559]: variant `Field::Fool` has no field named `joke`
 --> src/test/compile-fail/E0559.rs:16:27
   | 
16 |     let s = Field::Fool { joke: 0 }; 
   |                           ^^^^ did you mean `x`?    

2. Include label combining E0559 and E0560

error[E0559]: variant `Field::Fool` has no field named `joke`
 --> src/test/compile-fail/E0559.rs:16:27
   | 
16 |     let s = Field::Fool { joke: 0 }; 
   |                           ^^^^ `Field::Fool` does not have this field. Did you mean `x`?    

3. Include both labels

error[E0559]: variant `Field::Fool` has no field named `joke`
 --> src/test/compile-fail/E0559.rs:16:27
   | 
16 |     let s = Field::Fool { joke: 0 }; 
   |                           ^^^^   
   |                           | `Field::Fool` does not have this field.
   |                           |  did you mean `x`?  

I'm going to update my PR to use 2), since it seems the most natural, but let me know what the preferred format is.

[sophiajt]

I lean towards option 1. We could make it explain a little more as well:

error[E0559]: variant `Field::Fool` has no field named `joke`
 --> src/test/compile-fail/E0559.rs:16:27
   | 
16 |     let s = Field::Fool { joke: 0 }; 
   |                           ^^^^ unknown field - did you mean `x`?  

[sophiajt]

@aclarry - Looks like it's not currently building:

error[E0531]: unresolved variant or struct `TyEnum`
    --> src/librustc_typeck/check/mod.rs:3097:23
     |
3097 |         } else if let ty::TyEnum(..) = ty.sty {
     |                       ^^^^^^^^^^

error: aborting due to previous error

[aclarry]

@jonathandturner Yep, just working that out at the moment. I updated the PR to use the message field does not exist - did you mean x?

[aclarry]

@jonathandturner The CI tests have passed, this should be ready to merge if you're happy with the implementation and the updated label for E0559.

[sophiajt]

Looks good!

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 23efc54 has been approved by jonathandturner