Implement diagnostic translation for rustc-errors

[dayo05]

This is my first PR to rustc yeah~

I'm going to implement diagnostic translation on rustc-errors crate.

This PR is WIP, the reason of opening this as draft, I want to show my code to prevent the issue caused by misunderstanding and also I have few questions.

Some error messages are processed by pluralize! macro which determines to use plural word or not. From now, I make two kinds of keys and combine with enum but I'm not sure is this best method to do it.

Is there any prefered method to do this? => This resolved on conversation on PR.

I'll remain to perform force-push until my first implementation looks good to me

[rustbot]

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

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[dayo05]

@rustbot label +A-translation

[dayo05]

r? rust-lang/diagnostics

[fmease]

Thanks for working on this!

[compiler-errors]

Please try applying what I suggested (specifically the code = "{suggestion}" part) and if that does/doesn't work, mark this as @rustbot review.

@rustbot author

[dayo05]

@rustbot review

[dayo05]

@compiler-errors Any progress in here?

[compiler-errors]

r? @davidtwco

[davidtwco]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 05c856a has been approved by davidtwco

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 05c856a with merge f239bb6...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing f239bb6 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f239bb6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - 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)	69.5%	[2.1%, 136.8%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.5%, -0.3%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.3%]	2

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)	1.9%	[0.8%, 3.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.9%	[0.8%, 3.1%]	2

Cycles

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)	176.3%	[176.3%, 176.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 652.317s -> 655.772s (0.53%)

[nnethercote]

The huge unused-warnings check incr-unchanged regression here was just a blip and immediately disappeared in #114080. Interesting that it happened on the benchmark that issues a huge number of warnings, given that this was a diagnostic PR.

[dayo05]

I have no idea about this performance issue, I thought that there are any logical reasons for the cause, because my PR is not related to unused check. I think its just blip.
But, it occured on other PR, so I'll migrate this to other issue soon

[nnethercote]

No need for further perf investigation here, in my opinion.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged