Add module name validation in cabal check command

[mpickering]

This change ensures that Cabal warns about modules with names that would cause portability issues, especially on Windows systems where certain names like "aux", "con", "nul", etc. are reserved by the operating system.

Fixes #10295

Please read Github PR Conventions and then fill in one of these two templates.

---

Template Α: This PR modifies behaviour or interface

Include the following checklist in your PR:

• Patches conform to the coding conventions.
• Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog.
  • Is the change significant? If so, remember to add significance: significant in the changelog file.
• The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Manual QA notes have been included.
• Tests have been added. (Ask for help if you don’t know how to write them! Ask for an exemption if tests are too complex for too little coverage!)

---

Template B: This PR does not modify behaviour or interface

E.g. the PR only touches documentation or tests, does refactorings, etc.

Include the following checklist in your PR:

• Patches conform to the coding conventions.
• Is this a PR that fixes CI? If so, it will need to be backported to older cabal release branches (ask maintainers for directions).

[mpickering]

Thanks for your comments so far, much appreciated. Just let me know how you prefer things to be structured and I will adapt the PR.

[ffaf1]

Thanks for your comments so far, much appreciated. Just let me know how you prefer things to be structured and I will adapt the PR.

Thanks for the PR! I promise tomorrow (or WE at worst) I will take a thorough look instead of poking bits of it.

[mpickering]

I have modified the test like you suggested.

• Remove assertOutputContains
• Create empty directories (these need to contain files as the testsuite driver will not create empty directories when the files are copied).

I don't agree with the change to assertOutputContains, I have seen it several times where --accept is used without considering the changed output. It is easier to discern what a test is supposed to do with an explicit assertion. However, I will just note that objection and have changed it as you've requested.

[ffaf1]

Thanks, I appreciate!

[mpickering]

@ffaf1 Can we merge this patch?

[ffaf1]

We need one more review! Let me readd the label, it should hopefully bring more eyes to this (by popping up on matrix again, that is)!

[ulysses4ever]

Stellar!