Golden tests for purs/failing and purs/warning

[dariooddenino]

No description provided.

[hdgarrood]

On second thoughts I think I'd prefer to go with what @natefaubion suggested on Discourse and keep the shouldFailWith stuff in here, just in case. The code probably isn't doing much harm. (Also, as an aside, if we were going to remove the code for handling these special comments, then we should also remove all of the special comments from the test input files too.)

[dariooddenino]

You mean that you would like to have both the golden tests and the directives check? I thought @natefaubion meant that he just wanted the directives on the test files, not the tests.

[hdgarrood]

I’m pretty sure the idea was to keep in both the directives themselves and the code which tests them; they aren’t very useful if we aren’t checking them.

[garyb]

I'm a fan of keeping the shouldFailWith etc. because otherwise these tests are only useful for preventing regressions. When working on an error or warning I tend to work in a TDDish way, in that I make a bunch of cases that should fail first and then work on making them fail the correct way after.

[dariooddenino]

Directives are back in :)

[natefaubion]

Do we want to omit ANSI color sequences in the .out file?

[hdgarrood]

I don't have any strong feelings on this - I guess would make the test output a bit nicer to look at if we did omit them, but also the colours might be worth testing as they do help distinguish names in your code from error message text, as seen in eg #2056

[hdgarrood]

Looks great. Thank you very much!