feat: Report some dependency changes on any command #13561
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @weihanglo rustbot has assigned @weihanglo. Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer |
rustbot
added
A-lockfile
epage
changed the title
|
Test failures will show what the proposed output is |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2024
refactor(lockfile): Make diffing/printing more reusable ### What does this PR try to resolve? This is prep for #13561 so we can tailor the printing of lockfile changes to each use without a bunch of flags. ### How should we test and review this PR? ### Additional information
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #13564) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
epage
changed the title
epage
force-pushed
the
msrv-report
branch
4 times, most recently
from
9109d92
to
609ad02
Compare
weihanglo
reviewed
Mar 19, 2024
| @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ fn frequency() { | |||
| .env("CARGO_GC_AUTO_FREQUENCY", "1 day") | |||
| .masquerade_as_nightly_cargo(&["gc"]) | |||
| .run(); | |||
| assert_eq!(get_index_names().len(), 0); | |||
| assert_eq!(get_index_names().len(), 1); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Guess this is a consequence of cargo querying the latest versions for displaying lockfile changes after the build, while auto-gc was run ahead of the build.
Seems like a waste of energy but in real world that rarely happens and would be fine 🙆🏾♂️.
weihanglo
approved these changes
Mar 20, 2024
|
This PR includes a UI change that prints a The Cargo team has discussed and considered it as a two-way-door change so I'm gonna merge this. @bors r+ |
bors
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
This was referenced Mar 20, 2024
epage
added a commit
to epage/cargo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2024
This is part of rust-lang#9930 for rust-lang/rfcs#3537 This will make it easier to maintain an MSRV-compliant `Cargo.toml` but leaves validation up to the user as the resolver will pick newer versions. This helps the MSRV-aware workflows enumerated in rust-lang/rfcs#3537 though it could be confusing to the workflow with an MSRV-compatible lockfile. PR rust-lang#13561 at least raises awareness of that discrepancy. There is an unresolved question on differences in the resolver vs `cargo add` for dealing with an unset `rust-version`. However, we are only stabilizing the `cargo add` side which is a very light two-way door as this is a UX-focused command and not a programmatic command. This hasn't gotten much end-user testing but, as its UX focused, that seems fine. As such, this seems like it is ready to stabilize.
epage
added a commit
to epage/cargo
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2024
This is part of rust-lang#9930 for rust-lang/rfcs#3537 This will make it easier to maintain an MSRV-compliant `Cargo.toml` but leaves validation up to the user as the resolver will pick newer versions. This helps the MSRV-aware workflows enumerated in rust-lang/rfcs#3537 though it could be confusing to the workflow with an MSRV-compatible lockfile. PR rust-lang#13561 at least raises awareness of that discrepancy. There is an unresolved question on differences in the resolver vs `cargo add` for dealing with an unset `rust-version`. However, we are only stabilizing the `cargo add` side which is a very light two-way door as this is a UX-focused command and not a programmatic command. This hasn't gotten much end-user testing but, as its UX focused, that seems fine. As such, this seems like it is ready to stabilize.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 25, 2024
Update cargo 13 commits in d438c80c45c24be676ef5867edc79d0a14910efe..a510712d05c6c98f987af24dd73cdfafee8922e6 2024-03-19 16:11:22 +0000 to 2024-03-25 03:45:54 +0000 - Remove unnecessary test (rust-lang/cargo#13637) - Use `gitoxide` for `list_files_git` (rust-lang/cargo#13592) - fix: Warn on -Zlints (rust-lang/cargo#13632) - feat: Add a basic linting system (rust-lang/cargo#13621) - docs: remove untrue TODO for `native_dirs` (rust-lang/cargo#13631) - refactor(testsuite): Rename lints to lints_table (rust-lang/cargo#13627) - Fix debuginfo strip when using `--target` (rust-lang/cargo#13618) - refactor(toml): Push diagnostic complexity on annotate-snippets (rust-lang/cargo#13619) - Fix publish script due to crates.io CDN change (rust-lang/cargo#13614) - fix(alias): dont panic when resolving an empty alias (rust-lang/cargo#13613) - Update annotate snippets (rust-lang/cargo#13609) - refactor(vendor): tiny not important refactors (rust-lang/cargo#13610) - feat: Report some dependency changes on any command (rust-lang/cargo#13561) r? ghost
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 26, 2024
Update cargo 13 commits in d438c80c45c24be676ef5867edc79d0a14910efe..a510712d05c6c98f987af24dd73cdfafee8922e6 2024-03-19 16:11:22 +0000 to 2024-03-25 03:45:54 +0000 - Remove unnecessary test (rust-lang/cargo#13637) - Use `gitoxide` for `list_files_git` (rust-lang/cargo#13592) - fix: Warn on -Zlints (rust-lang/cargo#13632) - feat: Add a basic linting system (rust-lang/cargo#13621) - docs: remove untrue TODO for `native_dirs` (rust-lang/cargo#13631) - refactor(testsuite): Rename lints to lints_table (rust-lang/cargo#13627) - Fix debuginfo strip when using `--target` (rust-lang/cargo#13618) - refactor(toml): Push diagnostic complexity on annotate-snippets (rust-lang/cargo#13619) - Fix publish script due to crates.io CDN change (rust-lang/cargo#13614) - fix(alias): dont panic when resolving an empty alias (rust-lang/cargo#13613) - Update annotate snippets (rust-lang/cargo#13609) - refactor(vendor): tiny not important refactors (rust-lang/cargo#13610) - feat: Report some dependency changes on any command (rust-lang/cargo#13561) r? ghost
epage
added a commit
to epage/cargo
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2024
This is part of rust-lang#9930 for rust-lang/rfcs#3537 This will make it easier to maintain an MSRV-compliant `Cargo.toml` but leaves validation up to the user as the resolver will pick newer versions. This helps the MSRV-aware workflows enumerated in rust-lang/rfcs#3537 though it could be confusing to the workflow with an MSRV-compatible lockfile. PR rust-lang#13561 at least raises awareness of that discrepancy. There is an unresolved question on differences in the resolver vs `cargo add` for dealing with an unset `rust-version`. However, we are only stabilizing the `cargo add` side which is a very light two-way door as this is a UX-focused command and not a programmatic command. This hasn't gotten much end-user testing but, as its UX focused, that seems fine. As such, this seems like it is ready to stabilize.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2024
feat(add): Stabilize MSRV-aware version req selection ### What does this PR try to resolve? This is part of #9930 for rust-lang/rfcs#3537 This will make it easier to maintain an MSRV-compliant `Cargo.toml` but leaves validation up to the user as the resolver will pick newer versions. This helps the MSRV-aware workflows enumerated in rust-lang/rfcs#3537 ### How should we test and review this PR? As for determining if this is ready for stabilization: By stabilizing this without the MSRV-aware resolver, this could be confusing to the workflow with an MSRV-compatible lockfile. PR #13561 at least raises awareness of that discrepancy. In general there was interest in the RFC discussions to stabilize this ASAP, regardless of what resolver direction we went. There is an unresolved question on differences in the resolver vs `cargo add` for dealing with an unset `rust-version` (noted in the tracking issue). However, we are only stabilizing the `cargo add` side which is a very light two-way door as this is a UX-focused command and not a programmatic command. This hasn't gotten much end-user acceptance testing but, as its UX focused, that seems fine (light, two way door) As such, this seems like it is ready to stabilize. ### Additional information
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2024
feat(update): Include a Locking message ### What does this PR try to resolve? This extends #13561 to `cargo update`. I previously left it out because the locking message was redundant. However the `Locking` message has been extended in #13754 to include the resolving policy which can be a useful point of interest (e.g. "why does `cargo update` do nothing? Oh, `-Zminimal-versions` is enabled"). I still left out the message for `--precise` because the user is overriding all of that. I'd still like to extend all of this to `cargo install` (and maybe all resolves) but that is taking more investigation. ### How should we test and review this PR? ### Additional information
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2024
feat(install): Including Locking message ### What does this PR try to resolve? This extends #13561 to include `cargo install`, like #13759 did for `cargo update`. As we switch to MSRV-aware resolver, this will help users work out why MSRV-aware resolving isn't helping them. This will also make it more obvious if we breaking things when developing the MSRV-aware resolver. ### How should we test and review this PR? ### Additional information This still leaves `cargo publish` and a couple other misc situations that I'm intentionally avoiding because - They hit some weird cases that can confuse the user (e.g. causing `cargo install --locked` to show that 1 package is being added) and we can't distinguish these cases too well from where this is happening - The value is lower
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR try to resolve?
The goal is to help users be informed when they are held back by either MSRV or semver.
Fixes #13539
How should we test and review this PR?
Additional information