Simplify Notification::RemovingComponent invocation #2012
Closed
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
thedrow
suggested changes
Sep 24, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for working on this.
The reason for adding RemovingOldComponent was because you can also rustup component remove.
In this case, you are not removing an old component to replace it with a new one. You are simply removing it since you no longer need it.
I don't think that this behaviour is correct from a UX perspective.
|
Thanks, @thedrow. Will take a look and correct. |
BeniCheni
force-pushed
the
removing-component-notification
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9aa24c8
to
5a3dc11
Compare
Signed-off-by: Daniel Silverstone <dsilvers@digital-scurf.org>
Attempt to replicate the functionality from <rust-lang/cargo#6004> in order to pass Ctrl+C on in Windows Signed-off-by: Daniel Silverstone <dsilvers@digital-scurf.org>
Correct notification for removing component Revert edit in src/dist/manifestation.rs
BeniCheni
force-pushed
the
removing-component-notification
branch
from
5a3dc11
to
8db647e
Compare
|
Will open a new PR. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #1993.
After analyzing #1993 that led to #1283 & the source of #1639, the hypothesis is to simplify to just
Notification::RemovingComponentinvocation in "src/dist/manifestation.rs" and "src/dist/notification.rs", based on the understanding of the goal is to ultimately just display:By such simplification, also able to delete unneeded
RemovingOldComponentcode. Looking forward to review feedback & mentioning to update the PR, if my analysis or hypothesis is correctly.P.S: I also tried to understand this comment from the 1st comment in #1993:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup.rs/blob/489fa585117dc0ac283f247f3c9a829fd32442af/src/dist/manifestation.rs#L133
I'm speculating that the
alteredvariable checks for default dist server, and guessing that when tests run, the local env would somehow be considered truthy for thealteredflag to call originalRemovingOldComponentto land to the output code for "info: removing old component", and the tests would pass/While running the "prod dist" build, the
alteredflag was considered falsy, and it would call the originalRemovingComponentto land to the output code for "info: removing component".