Remove test_run_black

[A5rocks]

#2988 was closed, but I think we agree that test_run_black can be removed. I don't actually remember why it was introduced, but using blame all the way back leads to it not seeming necessary. It was made because test_lint_failure wouldn't check that ruff was actually running, so we duplicated that to have a black-specific test and a ruff-specific test. The ruff one is still useful (maybe), but the black one is duplicated.

I'm not so sure any of these tests should exist anymore. I think I kinda pushed for the ruff-specific one but now I think it's ultimately unnecessary. If ruff doesn't run in gen_exports, that's ... fine. We have CI jobs dedicated to checking our code is alright and if it isn't, then that will be caught. Removing that is another PR's job though.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.63%. Comparing base (b4c19bc) to head (229c76b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2993      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.63%   99.63%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         117      117              
  Lines       17602    17593       -9     
  Branches     3174     3173       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        17537    17528       -9     
  Misses         46       46              
  Partials       19       19              

Files	Coverage Δ
src/trio/_tests/tools/test_gen_exports.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)

[A5rocks]

Yikes looks like GHA sometimes makes macos-latest use the new m1 chips even though setup python doesn't like that: https://github.com/A5rocks/trio/actions/runs/8827503948/job/24234861793

[CoolCat467]

If ruff doesn't run in gen_exports, that's ... fine. We have CI jobs dedicated to checking our code is alright and if it isn't, then that will be caught. Removing that is another PR's job though.

I think running ruff in gen_exports is important, now that ruff handles import sorting, and if it isn't run then ruff will complain about generated files. I remember working on exactly this at one point.

[CoolCat467]

I would be for removing this test as well, but I think I remember I tried removing it or something in a previous pull request (I specifically remember the import waffle haha) and I think I recall it lead to a loss of test coverage that was an issue I think. Don't completely remember the details, but thought I'd share.

[A5rocks]

Doesn't look like this loses test coverage. Removing test_run_ruff probably does though, and removing test_lint_failures definitely does. (but I'd argue that coverage loss is beneficial.)

For clarity, when I say "If ruff doesn't run in gen_exports, that's ... fine." I mean "if we break it accidentally" (which is the case the tests guard against).