Show evaluated test arguments for set/char/numeric comparison functions

[omus]

Extends the list of functions introduced in #30721 which show their evaluated arguments when the @test fails. Having this makes it much easier at a glance to debug the problem:

julia> using Test

julia> x = [1,2];

julia> y = [1,3];

julia> @test issubset(x, y)
Test Failed at REPL[5]:1
  Expression: issubset(x, y)
   Evaluated: issubset([1, 2], [1, 3])

ERROR: There was an error during testing

The original PR added some good tests for this functionality. The new functions are less complicated than isapprox so I was thinking additional tests wouldn't be required. I can add some if others feel differently.

Alternative to:

• Show evaluated test arguments for functions with 1 & 2 arguments #57825

[omus]

I'm considering expanding this functionality further to evaluated arguments for any 1/2 argument function call.

[LilithHafner]

Most of these are clear improvements and an easy merge. The issetequal and issubset functions are a bit iffy because they might be come less readable in the case of large objects:

julia> using Test

julia> x = rand(10000);

julia> @test issubset(x[1:100], x)
Test Passed

julia> @test issubset(x, x[1:100])
Test Failed at REPL[4]:1
  Expression: issubset(x, x[1:100])

TBH I'm fine with including them if you want, regardless.

[omus]

The issetequal and issubset functions are a bit iffy because they might be come less readable in the case of large objects

True, however we can already see the evaluate output for issubset by using the operator instead:

julia> using Test

julia> x = rand(10000);

julia> @test Set(x) ⊆ Set(x[1:100])
Test Failed at REPL[4]:1
  Expression: Set(x) ⊆ Set(x[1:100])
   Evaluated: Set([0.610825218143219, 0.07609558482085998, 0.6472379469621696, 0.2866250518445128, 0.9894449007594035, 0.5896579008491469, 0.43901414917292614, 0.17669143107161656, 0.6027709720821334, 0.7507150294850947  …  0.6401123629705973, 0.8328115919098275, 0.8655849484323953, 0.04856521127506497, 0.6974018123218493, 0.15446669145578185, 0.022489484375737723, 0.7115874557949187, 0.9301378413142882, 0.20743897739462058]) ⊆ Set([0.08236731303653522, 0.013527805966567885, 0.3587710294990768, 0.33806174679565326, 0.13010121886943615, 0.7132695337183813, 0.5612640721162494, 0.42069056143135375, 0.46486952878111376, 0.6824664276902744  …  0.6985310136900829, 0.009170975815409044, 0.18339254712771613, 0.6401123629705973, 0.7236067219720211, 0.6782758185089984, 0.5871499370719643, 0.4262745626946086, 0.022489484375737723, 0.6150820937170625])

ERROR: There was an error during testing

[omus]

I'm going to see if we can move forward with #57825 first. We can hold off on merging this for now

[omus]

Closing in favor of #57825