Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Small things #6910

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 6, 2019
Merged

Small things #6910

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
bf28b0f
add comments to `generalize_conflicting` and use more general logic
Eh2406 Apr 26, 2019
45411e2
if found a case that causes a panic and did not use all of the input.…
Eh2406 May 2, 2019
d11e42c
nit
Eh2406 May 6, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
68 changes: 20 additions & 48 deletions src/cargo/core/resolver/conflict_cache.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,20 +18,17 @@ enum ConflictStoreTrie {

impl ConflictStoreTrie {
/// Finds any known set of conflicts, if any,
/// which are activated in `cx` and contain `PackageId` specified.
/// where all elements return some from `is_active` and contain `PackageId` specified.
/// If more then one are activated, then it will return
/// one that will allow for the most jump-back.
fn find_conflicting(
fn find(
&self,
cx: &Context,
is_active: &impl Fn(PackageId) -> Option<usize>,
must_contain: Option<PackageId>,
) -> Option<(&ConflictMap, usize)> {
match self {
ConflictStoreTrie::Leaf(c) => {
if must_contain.is_none() {
// `is_conflicting` checks that all the elements are active,
// but we have checked each one by the recursion of this function.
debug_assert!(cx.is_conflicting(None, c).is_some());
Some((c, 0))
} else {
// We did not find `must_contain`, so we need to keep looking.
Expand All @@ -45,9 +42,9 @@ impl ConflictStoreTrie {
.unwrap_or_else(|| m.range(..))
{
// If the key is active, then we need to check all of the corresponding subtrie.
if let Some(age_this) = cx.is_active(pid) {
if let Some(age_this) = is_active(pid) {
if let Some((o, age_o)) =
store.find_conflicting(cx, must_contain.filter(|&f| f != pid))
store.find(is_active, must_contain.filter(|&f| f != pid))
{
let age = if must_contain == Some(pid) {
// all the results will include `must_contain`
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -102,28 +99,6 @@ impl ConflictStoreTrie {
*self = ConflictStoreTrie::Leaf(con)
}
}

fn contains(&self, mut iter: impl Iterator<Item = PackageId>, con: &ConflictMap) -> bool {
match (self, iter.next()) {
(ConflictStoreTrie::Leaf(c), None) => {
if cfg!(debug_assertions) {
let a: Vec<_> = con.keys().collect();
let b: Vec<_> = c.keys().collect();
assert_eq!(a, b);
}
true
}
(ConflictStoreTrie::Leaf(_), Some(_)) => false,
(ConflictStoreTrie::Node(_), None) => false,
(ConflictStoreTrie::Node(m), Some(n)) => {
if let Some(next) = m.get(&n) {
next.contains(iter, con)
} else {
false
}
}
}
}
}

pub(super) struct ConflictCache {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -172,6 +147,17 @@ impl ConflictCache {
dep_from_pid: HashMap::new(),
}
}
pub fn find(
&self,
dep: &Dependency,
is_active: &impl Fn(PackageId) -> Option<usize>,
must_contain: Option<PackageId>,
) -> Option<&ConflictMap> {
self.con_from_dep
.get(dep)?
.find(is_active, must_contain)
.map(|(c, _)| c)
}
/// Finds any known set of conflicts, if any,
/// which are activated in `cx` and contain `PackageId` specified.
/// If more then one are activated, then it will return
Expand All @@ -182,14 +168,11 @@ impl ConflictCache {
dep: &Dependency,
must_contain: Option<PackageId>,
) -> Option<&ConflictMap> {
let out = self
.con_from_dep
.get(dep)?
.find_conflicting(cx, must_contain)
.map(|(c, _)| c);
let out = self.find(dep, &|id| cx.is_active(id), must_contain);
if cfg!(debug_assertions) {
if let Some(f) = must_contain {
if let Some(c) = &out {
if let Some(c) = &out {
assert!(cx.is_conflicting(None, c).is_some());
if let Some(f) = must_contain {
assert!(c.contains_key(&f));
}
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -229,17 +212,6 @@ impl ConflictCache {
}
}

/// Check if a conflict was previously added of the form:
/// `dep` is known to be unresolvable if
/// all the `PackageId` entries are activated.
pub fn contains(&self, dep: &Dependency, con: &ConflictMap) -> bool {
if let Some(cst) = self.con_from_dep.get(dep) {
cst.contains(con.keys().cloned(), con)
} else {
false
}
}

pub fn dependencies_conflicting_with(&self, pid: PackageId) -> Option<&HashSet<Dependency>> {
self.dep_from_pid.get(&pid)
}
Expand Down
58 changes: 48 additions & 10 deletions src/cargo/core/resolver/mod.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -895,24 +895,62 @@ fn generalize_conflicting(
// A dep is equivalent to one of the things it can resolve to.
// Thus, if all the things it can resolve to have already ben determined
// to be conflicting, then we can just say that we conflict with the parent.
if registry
if let Some(others) = registry
.query(critical_parents_dep)
.expect("an already used dep now error!?")
.iter()
.rev() // the last one to be tried is the least likely to be in the cache, so start with that.
.all(|other| {
let mut con = conflicting_activations.clone();
con.remove(&backtrack_critical_id);
con.insert(
other.summary.package_id(),
backtrack_critical_reason.clone(),
);
past_conflicting_activations.contains(dep, &con)
.map(|other| {
past_conflicting_activations
.find(
dep,
&|id| {
if id == other.summary.package_id() {
// we are imagining that we used other instead
Some(backtrack_critical_age)
} else {
cx.is_active(id).filter(|&age|
// we only care about things that are older then critical_age
age < backtrack_critical_age)
}
},
Some(other.summary.package_id()),
)
.map(|con| (other.summary.package_id(), con))
})
.collect::<Option<Vec<(PackageId, &ConflictMap)>>>()
{
let mut con = conflicting_activations.clone();
con.remove(&backtrack_critical_id);
// It is always valid to combine previously inserted conflicts.
// A, B are both known bad states each that can never be activated.
// A + B is redundant but cant be activated, as if
// A + B is active then A is active and we know that is not ok.
for (_, other) in &others {
con.extend(other.iter().map(|(&id, re)| (id, re.clone())));
}
// Now that we have this combined conflict, we can do a substitution:
// A dep is equivalent to one of the things it can resolve to.
// So we can remove all the things that it resolves to and replace with the parent.
for (other_id, _) in &others {
con.remove(other_id);
}
con.insert(*critical_parent, backtrack_critical_reason);

#[cfg(debug_assertions)]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could this use cfg! instead of #[cfg]?

{
// the entire point is to find an older conflict, so let's make sure we did
let new_age = con
.keys()
.map(|&c| cx.is_active(c).expect("not currently active!?"))
.max()
.unwrap();
assert!(
new_age < backtrack_critical_age,
"new_age {} < backtrack_critical_age {}",
new_age,
backtrack_critical_age
);
}
past_conflicting_activations.insert(dep, &con);
return Some(con);
}
Expand Down
35 changes: 28 additions & 7 deletions tests/testsuite/support/resolver.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -73,16 +73,20 @@ pub fn resolve_with_config_raw(
registry: &[Summary],
config: Option<&Config>,
) -> CargoResult<Resolve> {
struct MyRegistry<'a>(&'a [Summary]);
struct MyRegistry<'a> {
list: &'a [Summary],
used: HashSet<PackageId>,
};
impl<'a> Registry for MyRegistry<'a> {
fn query(
&mut self,
dep: &Dependency,
f: &mut dyn FnMut(Summary),
fuzzy: bool,
) -> CargoResult<()> {
for summary in self.0.iter() {
for summary in self.list.iter() {
if fuzzy || dep.matches(summary) {
self.used.insert(summary.package_id());
f(summary.clone());
}
}
Expand All @@ -97,7 +101,28 @@ pub fn resolve_with_config_raw(
false
}
}
let mut registry = MyRegistry(registry);
impl<'a> Drop for MyRegistry<'a> {
fn drop(&mut self) {
if std::thread::panicking() && self.list.len() != self.used.len() {
// we found a case that causes a panic and did not use all of the input.
// lets print the part of the input that was used for minimization.
println!(
"{:?}",
PrettyPrintRegistry(
self.list
.iter()
.filter(|s| { self.used.contains(&s.package_id()) })
.cloned()
.collect()
)
);
}
}
}
let mut registry = MyRegistry {
list: registry,
used: HashSet::new(),
};
let summary = Summary::new(
pkg,
deps,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -348,8 +373,6 @@ fn meta_test_deep_pretty_print_registry() {
pkg!(("baz", "1.0.1")),
pkg!(("cat", "1.0.2") => [dep_req_kind("other", "2", Kind::Build, false)]),
pkg!(("cat", "1.0.3") => [dep_req_kind("other", "2", Kind::Development, false)]),
pkg!(("cat", "1.0.4") => [dep_req_kind("other", "2", Kind::Build, false)]),
pkg!(("cat", "1.0.5") => [dep_req_kind("other", "2", Kind::Development, false)]),
pkg!(("dep_req", "1.0.0")),
pkg!(("dep_req", "2.0.0")),
])
Expand All @@ -363,8 +386,6 @@ fn meta_test_deep_pretty_print_registry() {
pkg!((\"baz\", \"1.0.1\")),\
pkg!((\"cat\", \"1.0.2\") => [dep_req_kind(\"other\", \"^2\", Kind::Build, false),]),\
pkg!((\"cat\", \"1.0.3\") => [dep_req_kind(\"other\", \"^2\", Kind::Development, false),]),\
pkg!((\"cat\", \"1.0.4\") => [dep_req_kind(\"other\", \"^2\", Kind::Build, false),]),\
pkg!((\"cat\", \"1.0.5\") => [dep_req_kind(\"other\", \"^2\", Kind::Development, false),]),\
pkg!((\"dep_req\", \"1.0.0\")),\
pkg!((\"dep_req\", \"2.0.0\")),]"
)
Expand Down