Ensure Fluent messages are in alphabetical order

[clubby789]

Fixes #111847

This adds a tidy check to ensure Fluent messages are in alphabetical order, as well as sorting all existing messages. I think the error could be worded better, would appreciate suggestions.

Script used to sort files

import sys
import re

fn = sys.argv[1]
with open(fn, 'r') as f:
    data = f.read().split("\n")

chunks = []
cur = ""
for line in data:
    if re.match(r"^([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\s*=\s*", line):
        chunks.append(cur)
        cur = ""
    cur += line + "\n"
chunks.append(cur)
chunks.sort()

with open(fn, 'w') as f:
    f.write(''.join(chunks).strip("\n\n") + "\n")

[rustbot]

r? @compiler-errors

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

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc

cc @antoyo

[compiler-errors]

Looks fine... cc @rust-lang/wg-diagnostics in case anyone else cares, but I generally agree that, since ftl files otherwise have literally no structure except for generally being chronologically ordered, they probably should be just alphabetical.

[oli-obk]

Should we stick your fmt script into x fmt, too? Then most people will never even hit that check.

[Nilstrieb]

tidy already has a --bless mode, so if you RIIR that script it would be easy to put into tidy

[compiler-errors]

Given that it seems like @jyn514 is happy and nobody else has spoken up, r=jyn,me when CI is green.

@bors p=1 (maybe bump it to 10 if this fails to merge)

[clubby789]

@bors r=jyn514,compiler-errors

[bors]

📌 Commit f97fdda has been approved by jyn514,compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit f97fdda with merge c86212f...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jyn514,compiler-errors
Pushing c86212f to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c86212f): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.1%	[0.8%, 3.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.1%, 2.3%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.3%	[1.3%, 1.3%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 644.952s -> 644.366s (-0.09%)