E0057 needs to be updated to new format

[sophiajt]

From: src/test/compile-fail/E0057.rs

Error E0057 needs a span_label, updating it from:

error[E0057]: this function takes 1 parameter but 2 parameters were supplied
  --> src/test/compile-fail/E0057.rs:15:13
   |
15 |     let c = f(2, 3); //~ ERROR E0057
   |             ^^^^^^^
   |
   = note: the following parameter type was expected: (_,)

To:

error[E0057]: this function takes 1 parameter but 2 parameters were supplied
  --> src/test/compile-fail/E0057.rs:15:13
   |
15 |     let c = f(2, 3); //~ ERROR E0057
   |             ^^^^^^^ expected 1 parameter
   |
   = note: the following parameter type was expected: (_,)

Bonus 1: The note seems excessive. Check other E0057 errors. If it is not needed, remove the note.

Bonus 2: The span for the error could likely focus on the parameters rather than the whole call.

[paulfanelli]

I'm taking this one.

[paulfanelli]

@jonathandturner I think I've got most of this fix/working, but I'm having a problem fixing one of the unit test cases - issue-3044.rs. The other related test cases (issue-18819, issue-4935, method-call-err-msg, not-enough-arguments, overloaded-calls-bad and variadic-ffi-3) I was able to fix by following your blog guide. For some reason, issue-3044 is 'different' and I don't understand why. Not sure how to proceed...

[sophiajt]

@paulfanelli - can you show the errors you get when you try to get issue-3044 to pass?

[paulfanelli]

@jonathandturner I think I fixed the problem. I'm now trying to get my code checked in and pushed to by fork. Having some ssh key/cert issues. I think once I do that, I can do a PR?

[paulfanelli]

I just submitted a PR, but not sure if I did it correctly.

[acrrd]

The note of #35290 and this one are printed by the same function, can I modify it to print the expected types directly in the label?

I also did the bonus2 part for both E0060 and E0061.

[bstrie]

Freeing this one up as part of the final push for #35233.

[bstrie]

Actually, according to the comments in #35395 maybe this is already closed? @paulfanelli @jonathandturner , can you confirm?

[KiChjang]

@bstrie I think #35395 should be closed, and progress is under way in #36222.