fix(add): Reduce the chance we re-format the user's `[features]` table
### What does this PR try to resolve?
#11743 pointed out that we re-format the users `[features]` table when running `cargo add` which was a bug introduced in #11099.
This reduces the chance people will run into this problem
- Reducing the scope of the `fmt` call
- Preserving formatting in a simple case
Actually removing the `fmt` case can make some common formatting cases more complex to do "right", so I'm punting on that for now.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Look at the individual commits as I show how each change improves the behavior of `cargo add`.
This is a carry-over from cargo-edit where we had to worry about the UX
of all of the behavior while now we are just relying on built-in cargo
behavior and don't need to test it specifically for `cargo add`.
On my machine, this test takes 11s.
This just gets rid of irrelevant packages in the registry. Looking into
which versions aren't needed would require a deeper pass, so I held off
on that for now.
Before, the tests were in the 300-500ms range and now they take
100-300ms.
This did call to my attention that `unrelated` is misspelled as
`unrelateed` but holding off on fixing that to reduce conflicts.
`cargo add` check `[dependencies]` order without considering the dotted item
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Try to close https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/11584
`cargo check` check `[dependencies]` order without considering the dotted item.
### How should we test and review this PR?
See the unit test.
This will only show the messaeg if we didn't already show a version req
with full precision specified ... mostly. We'll also skip it if its a
local or git dependency but we never show the version in those cases
because it doesn't matter.
The `precise_version` logic came from cargo-upgrade.
This gives a hint to users that we might not be showing the feature list
for the latest version but the earliest version.
Also when using a workspace dependency or re-using an existing
dependency, this is a good reminder of what the version requirement is
that was selected.
However, when the user or add (the common case) selected a full
precision requirement, this is redundant.
I'm also mixed on whether the meta version should show up.
Fixes#11073
This is done in the command, rather than in the op,
- To consistently construct the `Workspace`
- It is more composable as an API
A downside is we update the git dependencies a second time.
We are not rolling back on error.
- For some errors, the user might want to debug what went wrong
- Rollback adds its own complications and risks, including since its
non-atomic
Fixes#10901
This is prep for #10901 to avoid the most common failure case for the
lock file. We are assuming if the users action caused a change in the
manifes, then it will cause a change in the lock file. This isn't
entirely true but close enough and I think these semantics can make
sense.
A comment on killercup/cargo-edit#15 had me worried that `cargo add` was
deleting comments now. It appears that isn't the case for inline
tables.
Standard tables however do delete comments. The work to make sure they
don't conflicts with another need. When changing the source, we delete
the old source fields and append the new which can cause some formatting
to be carried over unnecessarily.
For example, what would normally look like
```toml
cargo-list-test-fixture-dependency = { optional = true, path = "../dependency", version = "0.0.0" }
```
When fixed to preserve comments with my naive solution looks like
```toml
cargo-list-test-fixture-dependency = { optional = true , path = "../dependency", version = "0.0.0" }
```
Note that `optional = true` used to be last, so space separating it and
`}` was kept, now separating it and `,`.
More work will be needed to get this into an ideal state but we can at
least have confidence with inline tables for now.
In writing the contrib documentation for functional vs ui tests, I
realized that as we work to make snapbox work for the functional tests,
we'll need distinct `Assert` objects since we'll want to elide a lot
more content in functional tests. I'm making room for this by
qualifying the existing asserts as being for "ui".
