typeck: Do not pass the field check on field error

[dlrobertson]

If a struct pattern has a field error return an error.

Fixes: #51102

[rust-highfive]

r? @estebank

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

[estebank]

LGTM. I'll r+ once travis is happy.

[rust-highfive]

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-3.9 of your PR failed on Travis (raw log). Through arcane magic we have determined that the following fragments from the build log may contain information about the problem.

Click to expand the log.

[00:43:28] ....................................................................................................
[00:43:31] ....................................................................................................
[00:43:36] ....................................................................................................
[00:43:40] ....................................................................................................
[00:43:44] ......................................................F.............................................
[00:43:55] .................................................................i..................................
[00:43:59] ....................................................................................................
[00:44:05] ....................................................................................................
[00:44:11] ..............................................................................................i.....
[00:44:11] ..............................................................................................i.....
[00:44:14] ............iiiiiiiii...................................................
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] ---- [ui] ui/issue-51102.rs stdout ----
[00:44:14] diff of stderr:
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] 1 error[E0026]: struct `SimpleStruct` does not have a field named `state`
[00:44:14] -   --> $DIR/issue-51102.rs:13:17
[00:44:14] +   --> $DIR/issue-51102.rs:23:17
[00:44:14] 3    |
[00:44:14] 4 LL |                 state: 0,
[00:44:14] 5    |                 ^^^^^^^^ struct `SimpleStruct` does not have this field
[00:44:14] 6 
[00:44:14] 6 
[00:44:14] 7 error[E0025]: field `no_state_here` bound multiple times in the pattern
[00:44:14] -   --> $DIR/issue-51102.rs:24:17
[00:44:14] +   --> $DIR/issue-51102.rs:34:17
[00:44:14] 9    |
[00:44:14] 10 LL |                 no_state_here: 0,
[00:44:14] 11    |                 -ll,"suggestion_applicability":null,"expansion":null}],"children":[],"rendered":"error[E0025]: field `no_state_here` bound multiple times in the pattern\n  --> /checkout/src/test/ui/issue-51102.rs:34:17\n   |\nLL |                 no_state_here: 0,\n   |                 ---------------- first use of `no_state_here`\nLL |                 no_state_here: 1\n   |                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ multiple uses of `no_state_here` in pattern\n\n"}
[00:44:14] {"message":"variant `SimpleEnum::NoState` does not have a field named `state`","code":{"code":"E0026","explanation":"\nThis error indicates that a struct pattern attempted to extract a non-existent\nfield from a struct. Struct fields are identified by the name used before the\ncolon `:` so struct patterns should resemble the declaration of the struct type\nbeing matched.\n\n```\n// Correct matching.\nstruct Thing {\n    x: u32,\n    y: u32\n}\n\nlet thing = Thing { x: 1, y: 2 };\n\nmatch thing {\n    Thing { x: xfield, y: yfield } => {}\n}\n```\n\nIf you are using shorthand field patterns but want to refer to the struct field\nby a different name, you should rename it explicitly.\n\nChange this:\n\n```compile_fail,E0026\nstruct Thing {\n    x: u32,\n    y: u32\n}\n\nlet thing = Thing { x: 0, y: 0 };\n\nmatch thing {\n    Thing { x, z } => {}\n}\n```\n\nTo this:\n\n```\nstruct Thing {\n    x: u32,\n    y: u32\n}\n\nlet thing = Thing { x: 0, y: 0 };\n\nmatch thing {\n    Thing { x, y: z } => {}\n}\n```\n"},"level":"error","spans":[{"file_name":"/checkout/src/test/ui/issue-51102.rs","byte_start":1174,"byte_end":1182,"line_start":43,"line_end":43,"column_start":17,"column_end":25,"is_primary":true,"text":[{"text":"                state: 0","highlight_start":17,"highlight_end":25}],"label":"variant `SimpleEnum::NoState` does not have this field","suggested_replacement":null,"suggestion_applicability":null,"expansion":null}],"children":[],"rendered":"error[E0026]: variant `SimpleEnum::NoState` does not have a field named `state`\n  --> /checkout/src/test/ui/issue-51102.rs:43:17\n   |\nLL |                 state: 0\n   |                 ^^^^^^^^ variant `SimpleEnum::NoState` does not have this field\n\n"}
[00:44:14] {"message":"aborting due to 3 previous errors","code":null,"level":"error","spans":[],"children":[],"rendered":"error: aborting due to 3 previous errors\n\n"}
[00:44:14] {"message":"Some errors occurred: E0025, E0026.","code":null,"level":"","spans":[],"children":[],"rendered":"Some errors occurred: E0025, E0026.\n"}
[00:44:14] {"message":"For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0025`.","code":null,"level":"","spans":[],"children":[],"rendered":"For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0025`.\n"}
[00:44:14] ------------------------------------------
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] thread '[ui] ui/issue-51102.rs' panicked at 'explicit panic', tools/compiletest/src/runtest.rs:3053:9
[00:44:14] note: Run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` for a backtrace.
---
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] thread 'main' panicked at 'Some tests failed', tools/compiletest/src/main.rs:498:22
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] command did not execute successfully: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0-tools-bin/compiletest" "--compile-lib-path" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/lib" "--run-lib-path" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/lib/rustlib/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib" "--rustc-path" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustc" "--src-base" "/checkout/src/test/ui" "--build-base" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui" "--stage-id" "stage2-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "--mode" "ui" "--target" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "--host" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "--llvm-filecheck" "/usr/lib/llvm-3.9/bin/FileCheck" "--host-rustcflags" "-Crpath -O -Zunstable-options " "--target-rustcflags" "-Crpath -O -Zunstable-options  -Lnative=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/native/rust-test-helpers" "--docck-python" "/usr/bin/python2.7" "--lldb-python" "/usr/bin/python2.7" "--gdb" "/usr/bin/gdb" "--quiet" "--llvm-version" "3.9.1\n" "--system-llvm" "--cc" "" "--cxx" "" "--cflags" "" "--llvm-components" "" "--llvm-cxxflags" "" "--adb-path" "adb" "--adb-test-dir" "/data/tmp/work" "--android-cross-path" "" "--color" "always"
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] 
[00:44:14] failed to run: /checkout/obj/build/bootstrap/debug/bootstrap test
[00:44:14] Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:02:29
[00:44:14] Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:02:29
[00:44:14] make: *** [check] Error 1
[00:44:14] Makefile:58: recipe for target 'check' failed

The command "stamp sh -x -c "$RUN_SCRIPT"" exited with 2.
travis_time:start:1d221112
$ date && (curl -fs --head https://google.com | grep ^Date: | sed 's/Date: //g' || true)

I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact @TimNN. (Feature Requests)

[dlrobertson]

My bad. Forgot to update the line numbers when I updated the test. Updated.

[estebank]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 18ff09d has been approved by estebank

[bors]

🔒 Merge conflict

[dlrobertson]

Do I need to rebase this? Or is bors complaining about the rollup?

[pnkfelix]

@dlrobertson I think you need to rebase. homu's complaining about your commit here.

[dlrobertson]

Updated

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r=estebank p=1

@rust-lang/compiler -- Could we get someone to beta-approve this? We'll want to prepare a backport, too.

[bors]

📌 Commit 8f64415 has been approved by estebank