Most of UI tests are now compiled twice, once with --error-format json and once with --error-format human

[petrochenkov]

The change was made in #48337
cc @GuillaumeGomez

This is not helpful for our testing times, especially given that number of UI tests will grow due to other test categories being converted to UI.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Yep, sorry about that. However, if I didn't do this, the output was broken (because we'd have multiple useless "rustc --explain" sentences). If anyone has a better idea, it'd be very appreciated!

[GuillaumeGomez]

Actually, for the moment we only rely on the json error output. Add a new check over the "normal" error output would allow us to greatly reduce the ui tests duration.

[zackmdavis]

@GuillaumeGomez

if I didn't do this, the output was broken (because we'd have multiple useless "rustc --explain" sentences).

Can you be more specific about what the problem was exactly? Intuitively, I wouldn't expect printing one or two extra lines after the errors to require any changes to the UI test framework itself.

[zackmdavis]

I have a branch which reverts 1dc2015. And indeed, when outputting for humans, we see the message about --explain just once, but in JSON mode, it appears once per error. It looks like this is because the message is being printed inside of EmitterWriter's .drop() method (!), and the JSON emitter itself instantiates an EmitterWriter when creating a Diagnostic from a DiagnosticBuilder.

[zackmdavis]

I need to sleep now, but I'd like to put together a PR tomorrow

[zackmdavis]

I'm pretty confident that we want to revert #48337: printing the --explain usage message inside of EmitterWriter.drop was not an adequate solution (because it's counterintuitive to be doing non-cleanup work in .drop, the unintended additional messages for every diagnostic in the JSON output were undesirable, and changing the test framework in response to that unintended undesirable thing is also undesirable).

I was hoping that, in order to avoid another enormous UI test output diff (which could potentially slow down the rest of the queue), it would be easy to reimplement the --explain usage message near where we issue the "aborting after n errors" message, without changing the output: then we would only have one more enormous UI test output diff when we edit the wording (#48559). But outputting the --explain usage message along with the "aborting after n errors" message in the Handler is looking somewhat less trivial that it sounds, because Handler doesn't seem to have direct access to an output stream where we can write some arbitrarily lines; it just has an Emitter trait object whose sole method (emit) can only take a DiagnosticBuilder. No doubt we could formulate the --explain message that we want in the form of a diagnostic (or come up with some alternative solution), but I wouldn't want to block on that.

[petrochenkov]

Fixed in #48684