Add new packages to [workspace.members] automatically
### What does this PR try to resolve?
If a new package is created in a workspace, this change adds the package's path to the workspace's members list automatically.
It doesn't add the package to the list if the path is in the workspace's exclude list, or if the members list doesn't exist already. I noticed that a `cargo_new` test broke if I create the members list when it doesn't exist. This is because the workspace's manifest can be used for package templating. I think it's better to not break that use case.
Fixes#6378
### How should we test and review this PR?
I've included tests in the `cargo_new` suite.
When a user runs `cargo new` or `cargo init` within a workspace, Cargo will automatically add the new package to the members list in the workspace if necessary. The heuristic to add the new package is as follows:
- If there is no `members` list in the workspace yet, a new `members` list is created.
- If there is an `exclude` statement, Cargo checks if the new package should be excluded. If it doesn't match the `exclude` list, the package is added to the `members` list.
- If there is a glob expression in the `members` list that matches the new package, the package is not added to the `members` list.
- If the existent `members` list is sorted, Cargo tries to preserve the ordering when it adds the new package.
This change doesn't try to format the resulting `members` list in any way, leaving the formatting decissions to the user.
Signed-off-by: David Calavera <david.calavera@gmail.com>
To have a separate manifest API (#12801), we can't rely on interning
because it might be used in longer-lifetime applications.
I consulted https://github.com/rosetta-rs/string-rosetta-rs when
deciding on what string type to use for performance.
Originally, I hoped to entirely replacing string interning. For that, I
was looking at `arcstr` as it had a fast equality operator. However,
that is only helpful so long as the two strings we are comparing came
from the original source. Unsure how likely that is to happen (and
daunted by converting all of the `Copy`s into `Clone`s), I decided to
scale back.
Concerned about all of the small allocations when parsing a manifest, I
assumed I'd need a string type with small-string optimizations, like
`hipstr`, `compact_str`, `flexstr`, and `ecow`.
The first three give us more wiggle room and `hipstr` was the fastest of
them, so I went with that.
I then double checked macro benchmarks, and realized `hipstr` made no
difference and switched to `String` to keep things simple / with lower
dependencies.
When doing this, I had created a type alias (`TomlStr`) for the string
type so I could more easily swap it out if needed
(and not have to always write out a lifetime).
With just using `String`, I went ahead and dropped that.
I had problems getting the cargo benchmarks running, so I did a quick
and dirty benchmark that is end-to-end, covering fresh builds, clean
builds, and resolution. I ran these against a fresh clone of cargo's
code base.
```console
$ ../dump/cargo-12801-bench.rs run
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.07s
Running `target/debug/cargo -Zscript -Zmsrv-policy ../dump/cargo-12801-bench.rs run`
warning: `package.edition` is unspecified, defaulting to `2021`
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
Running `/home/epage/.cargo/target/0a/7f4c1ab500f045/debug/cargo-12801-bench run`
$ hyperfine "../cargo-old check" "../cargo-new check"
Benchmark 1: ../cargo-old check
Time (mean ± σ): 119.3 ms ± 3.2 ms [User: 98.6 ms, System: 20.3 ms]
Range (min … max): 115.6 ms … 124.3 ms 24 runs
Benchmark 2: ../cargo-new check
Time (mean ± σ): 119.4 ms ± 2.4 ms [User: 98.0 ms, System: 21.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 115.7 ms … 123.6 ms 24 runs
Summary
../cargo-old check ran
1.00 ± 0.03 times faster than ../cargo-new check
$ hyperfine --prepare "cargo clean" "../cargo-old check" "../cargo-new check"
Benchmark 1: ../cargo-old check
Time (mean ± σ): 20.249 s ± 0.392 s [User: 157.719 s, System: 22.771 s]
Range (min … max): 19.605 s … 21.123 s 10 runs
Benchmark 2: ../cargo-new check
Time (mean ± σ): 20.123 s ± 0.212 s [User: 156.156 s, System: 22.325 s]
Range (min … max): 19.764 s … 20.420 s 10 runs
Summary
../cargo-new check ran
1.01 ± 0.02 times faster than ../cargo-old check
$ hyperfine --prepare "cargo clean && rm -f Cargo.lock" "../cargo-old check" "../cargo-new check"
Benchmark 1: ../cargo-old check
Time (mean ± σ): 21.105 s ± 0.465 s [User: 156.482 s, System: 22.799 s]
Range (min … max): 20.156 s … 22.010 s 10 runs
Benchmark 2: ../cargo-new check
Time (mean ± σ): 21.358 s ± 0.538 s [User: 156.187 s, System: 22.979 s]
Range (min … max): 20.703 s … 22.462 s 10 runs
Summary
../cargo-old check ran
1.01 ± 0.03 times faster than ../cargo-new check
```
I've wanted something like this myself. I dislike using `--open`
because I tend to move up to re-run my `cargo doc` run but then have to
edit it to remove `--open`.
Also makes it annoying when opening docs when `cargo doc` is wrapped by
a tool like `make`.
This was previously attempted in #5592:
- Unlike the request in #5562, this aligns with #5592 in always printing
rather than using a flag as this seems generally useful
- Unlike #5592, this prints as an alternative to "Opening" to keep
things light
- Unlike #5592, this prints afterwards as the link is only valid then
Fixes#5562
feat(toml): Allow version-less manifests
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Expected behavior with this PR:
- `package.version` defaults to `0.0.0`
- `package.publish` is defaulted to `version.is_some()`
This also updates "cargo script" to rely on this new behavior.
My motivation is to find ways to close the gap between "cargo script" and `Cargo.toml`. With "cargo script", we want to allow people to only write however much of a manifest is directly needed for the work they are doing (which includes having no manifest). Each difference between "cargo script" and `Cargo.toml` is a cost we have to pay in our documentation and a hurdle in a users understanding of what is happening.
There has been other interest in this which I also find of interest (from #9829):
- Lower boilerplate, whether for [cargo xtasks](https://github.com/matklad/cargo-xtask), nested packages (rust-lang/rfcs#3452), etc
- Unmet expectations from users because this field is primarily targeted at registry operations when they want it for their marketing version (#6583).
- Make "unpublished" packages stand out
This then unblocks unifying `package.publish` by making the field's default based on the presence of a version as inspired by the proposal in #9829. Without this change, we were trading one form of boilerplate (`version = "0.0.0"`) for another (`publish = false`).
Fixes#9829Fixes#12690Fixes#6153
### How should we test and review this PR?
The initial commit has test cases I thought would be relevant for this change and you can see how each commit affects those or existing test cases. Would definitely be interested in hearing of other troubling cases to test
Implementation wise, I made `MaybeWorkspaceVersion` deserializer trim spaces so I could more easily handle the field being an `Option`. This is in its own commit.
### Additional information
Alternatives considered
- Making the default version "stand out more" with it being something like `0.0.0+HEAD`. The extra noise didn't seem worth it and people would contend over what the metadata field *should be*
- Make the default version the lowest version possible (`0.0.0-0`?). Unsure if this will ever really matter especially since you can't publish
- Defer defaulting `package.publish` and instead error
- Further unifying more fields made this too compelling for me :)
- Put this behind `-Zscript` and make it a part of rust-lang/rfcs#3502
- Having an affect outside of that RFC, I wanted to make sure this got the attention it deserved rather than getting lost in the noise of a large RFC.
- Don't just default the version but make packages versionless
- I extended the concept of versionless to `PackageId`'s internals and saw no observable difference
- I then started to examine the idea of version being optional everywhere (via `PackageId`s API) and ... things got messy especially when starting to look at the resolver. This would have also added a lot of error checks / asserts for "the version must be set here". Overall, the gains seemed questionable and the cost high, so I held off.
Warn about crate name's format when creating new crate
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Warns about a crate's name during creation (`crate new ...`) if it doesn't follow the preferred snake_case format.
Fixes#2708
The warning message uses the language mentioned in [RFC 430](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0430-finalizing-naming-conventions.md#general-naming-conventions).
### How should we test and review this PR?
Verified existing tests succeeded with updates. Added new tests to verify fix.
### Additional information
The link to [API naming guidelines](https://rust-lang.github.io/api-guidelines/naming.html) was not used since it still stays `unclear` for naming convention for crates.
fix(cli): Provide next steps for bad -Z flag
In #5546, they suggested we have a list of them but that would be hard to keep up and works well enough to just always mention it.
Fixes#5546
fix(remove): Preserve feature comments
### What does this PR try to resolve?
We've been having a hard time balancing leaving the feature list in a good looking start and preserving formatting. With our new formatting policy (#12836), we can just choose to preserve formatting instead.
Fixes#11743
### How should we test and review this PR?
The first commit copies an existing test. The second is where the fun begins, customizing the test for some weird cases. The follow up commits do the slow walk for improving it.
We ended up preserving some line-trailing comments because they come after the comma and toml_edit treats that as part of the prefix of the next item. Tracking removal of that was going to require us to determine if the newline existed in the suffix or in the next item's prefix and edit accordingly and I decided to skip that to keep this initial implementation simpler.
### Additional information
fix(help):Clarify install's positional
### What does this PR try to resolve?
- That a version is accepted
- That you are selecting from the source a package which led to part of
the confusion in #4830
I wonder if we should rename our `CRATE` value names to `PKG`/`PACKAGE`
While doing this, I decided to fix the inconsistency in how we handle value names in help.
### How should we test and review this PR?
### Additional information
Adjust `-Zcheck-cfg` for new rustc syntax and behavior
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111072 introduced a new syntax for `rustc` `--check-cfg` argument. This PR adjust cargo `-Zcheck-cfg` for new that new syntax and behavior.
This PR removes all the `-Zcheck-cfg` options (`features`, `names`, `values`, `output`), as they don't make much sense now since with the new `rustc` behavior: `features`, `names` and `values` are all combine together and the `output` option was only here because the other were.
Now the new behavior from cargo is to always pass one `--check-cfg` argument to rustc for the `feature`s which implicitly enables well known names and values.
fix(replace): Partial-version spec support
### What does this PR try to resolve?
#12614 changed package ID specs to allow fields in the version number to be optional. This earliest branch with this change is `rust-1.74.0` (beta). While `@Eh2406` was investigating version metadata issues in #12772, problems with the partial version change were found
- `replace`s that specify version metadata were ignored **(fixed with this PR)**
- This also extends out to any other place a PackageIDSpec may show up, like `cargo check -p <name>`@<spec>``
- We explicitly kept the same semantics of version requirements that pre-releases require opt-in. If nothing else, this gives us more room to change semantics in the future if we ever fix the semantics for pre-release.
- `replace`s that don't specify version metadata when the `Cargo.lock` contained a version metadata, it would previously be ignored (with a warning) but now match **(unchanged with this PR)**
- When the version metadata in `Cargo.lock` differed from the overriding `Cargo.toml`, cargo would panic **(now an error in this PR)**
With this PR, we are acknowledging that we changed behavior in taking ignored replaces (because of differences with version metadata) and applying them. Seeing as version metadata is relatively rare, replaces are relatively rare, and differences in it for registries is unsupported, the impact seems very small.
The questions before us are
- Do we revert #12614 in `master` and `rust-1.74.0` or merge this PR into `master`
- If we merge this PR into `master`, do we cherry-pick this into `rust-1.74.0` or revert #12614, giving ourselves more time to find problems
### How should we test and review this PR?
The initial commit adds tests that pass as of #12614. Prior to #12614, these tests would have warned that the `replace` was unused and failed because `bar::bar` didn't exist. Each commit then changes the behavior (or not) and updates the corresponding test.
### Additional information
This commit removes all the -Zcheck-cfg options (features, names,
values, output), as they don't make much sense now since features, names
and values are all combine together for upstream rustc and the output
option was only here because the other were.
Now the new behavior from cargo is to always pass one `--check-cfg`
argument to rustc for the `feature`s which implicitly enables well known
names and values.
Print environment variables for build script executions with `-vv`
### What does this PR try to resolve?
When debugging complicated builds (I was trying to figure out how `cargo-miri` cross-compiles compiler_builtins without needing a C cross compiler), it's useful to see all the environment variables passed to the build script.
This is also consistent with other commands.
### How should we test and review this PR?
I tested it locally by creating a small crate with an empty `build.rs` and building it. Additionally, a test is included.
fix(cli): Suggest cargo-search on bad commands
This is a low-tech solution alternative to the options proposed in #4682
- Search `[[bin]]`s within all packages in the registry (which aren't tracked atm), suggesting to `cargo install` what is found
- Check if `cargo-<cmd>` is in the registry, suggesting `cargo install if it is
By suggesting `cargo search`, we are giving them a tool so they can verify if the package is what they want (a `cargo info` would help as a next step).
Is is needed?
- New users might not know of `cargo search` but they can search on crates.io
- New users might not be aware of the `cargo-<cmd>` naming pattern
Seems like this can still offer some benefit.
Fixes#4682
- That a version is accepted
- That you are selecting from the source a package which led to part of
the confusion in #4830
I wonder if we should rename our `CRATE` value names to `PKG`/`PACKAGE`
This is a low-tech solution alternative to the options proposed in #4682
- Search `[[bin]]`s within all packages in the registry (which aren't
tracked atm), suggesting to `cargo install` what is found
- Check if `cargo-<cmd>` is in the registry, suggesting `cargo install
if it is
By suggesting `cargo search`, we are giving them a tool so they can
verify if the package is what they want (a `cargo info` would help as a
next step).
Is is needed?
- New users might not know of `cargo search` but they can search on
crates.io
- New users might not be aware of the `cargo-<cmd>` naming pattern
Seems like this can still offer some benefit
Fixes#4682
This commit updates the processing of `workspace = true` dependencies in
the `[dependencies]` section to process the `public` field. Previously
this field was ignored and didn't get plumbed through as configured.
feat: add package name and version to warning messages
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Hi, this PR Fixes#8018, where i add the package name and version on warning messages.
As this is my first contribution to the project, if anything is not in compliance in the PR let me know and I will be happy to correct it.
Before the default was hardcoded to `true`. The problem was that means
that to remove the `package.version` boilerplate, you had to add
`package.publish = false` boilerplate.
To make the errors easier to understand in this situation, I err on the
side of encouraging people to put `publish = true` in their manifests.
By making this change, we also unblock "cargo script" /
`Cargo.toml` unifying the handling of `package.publish`.
This defaults the version to `0.0.0` for most of cargo.
It is an error to lack a version and have a package publishable.
That means you have to add `publish = false`.
Do not call it "Downgrading" when difference is only build metadata
### What does this PR try to resolve?
When a `cargo update --precise` changes a dependency between 2 versions which differ only in build metadata, Cargo prints a log referring to it as "Updating" or "Downgrading" the dependency, depending on a comparison between the build metadatas.
This is usually not meaningful, given that build metadata is often stuff like git commit hashes, which are not meaningfully ordered.
```console
Updating crates.io index
Downgrading foo v0.0.1+43ef4fe -> v0.0.1+2c65d16
Updating bar v0.0.2+bc17664 -> v0.0.2+c144a98
```
~~This PR changes to the word "Switching" when the version major, minor, patch, and pre-release value are not being changed.~~
This PR uses the word "Updating" when the version major, minor, patch, and pre-release value are unchanged, regardless of whether the build metadata is going up or down.
### How should we test and review this PR?
- `cargo test`
- `cargo build --release`
- `/path/to/cargo/target/release/cargo add tonic_datastore_v1`
- `/path/to/cargo/target/release/cargo update -p tonic_datastore_v1 --precise 0.1.0+3562b6cb3`
- `/path/to/cargo/target/release/cargo update -p tonic_datastore_v1 --precise 0.1.0+ee9e8e4e6`
Before:
<img src="https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/assets/1940490/93e377e7-928e-4cec-aff6-451166ef7c81" width="500">
~~After:~~
<img src="https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/assets/1940490/bb71459e-469a-4e09-bb8a-4083f34bce79" width="500">
After:
<img src="https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/assets/1940490/8804e2fe-d0de-4c9e-b463-a5742daf9446" width="500">
fix(install): Suggest an alternative version on MSRV failure
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Moves users from a bad error message, suggesting `--locked` which won't do anything, to suggesting a version of a package to use instead.
The side benefit is errors get reported sooner
- Before downloading the `.crate`
- When installing multiple packages, before building the first
This comes at the cost of an extra `rustc` invocation.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Per-commit this builds it up, from tests to the final design.
### Additional information
This is also written in a way to align fairly well with how we'd likely implement #10903.
This improved error message will still be useful after that issue is resolved when the MSRV compatible version is outside of the version req.
The next step would be to also automatically install an MSRV compatible
version if compatible with the version req (#10903).
This improved error message will still be useful if the MSRV compatible
version is outside of the version req.
I did this as the first step
- Helps people now, not needing to wait on `-Zmsrv-policy` to be stabilized
- Has fewer questions on how it should be done (or if it should be)
This will also report the error without having to download the `.crate`
first.
If installing multiple packages, this will also report it immediately,
rather than waiting for the other packages to be installed first.
This also offers us more flexibility in the error we report,
like suggesting more appropriate fixes.
This introduces a new `CacheLocker` which manages locks on the package
cache. Instead of either being "locked" or "not locked", the new locker
supports multiple modes:
- Shared lock: Cargo can read from the package sources, along with any
other cargos reading at the same time.
- Download exclusive lock: Only one cargo can perform downloads.
Download locks do not interfere with Shared locks, since it is
expected that downloading does not modify existing files (only adds
new ones).
- Mutate exclusive lock: Only one cargo can have this lock, and it also
prevents shared locks. This is so that the cargo can modify the
package cache (such as deleting files) without breaking concurrent
processes.
fix bug: corruption when cargo killed while writing
### What does this PR try to resolve?
fix #11386, superseding #12362
### How should we test and review this PR?
Added unit test showing basic equivalency to existing `write(path, content)`. Full test suite should exercise write.
Added tests for cargo add and remove. These are timing tests, so take a bit of time to run. 5-10s each. They may not fail every time, but do so regularly. Making the change to these two writes seems to prevent me from failing these tests at all.
### Additional information
This uses tempfile::persist which was an existing dependency. atomicwrites crate, an alternative option for this fix, indicates `tempfile::persist` is the same thing. Since we already use tempfile as a dep, I stuck with that.
Disable custom_target::custom_bin_target on windows-gnu
The `custom_target::custom_bin_target` test has been crashing frequently in CI on the x86_64-pc-windows-gnu target since the last LLVM 17 update. This disables the test to reduce the disruption in CI. The issue is being tracked in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115985.
feat(embedded): Hack in code fence support
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This is to allow us to get feedback on the design proposed
[on zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Embedding.20cargo.20manifests.20in.20rust.20source/near/391427092)
to verify we want to make an RFC for this syntax.
````rust
#!/usr/bin/env cargo
```cargo
[dependencies]
clap = { version = "4.2", features = ["derive"] }
```
use clap::Parser;
#[derive(Parser, Debug)]
#[clap(version)]
struct Args {
#[clap(short, long, help = "Path to config")]
config: Option<std::path::PathBuf>,
}
fn main() {
let args = Args::parse();
println!("{:?}", args);
}
````
### How should we test and review this PR?
The tests were updated in a separate commit to ensure there was no regression while then migrating to the new syntax to make sure it worked.
This involves some future work
- Removing doc comment support
- Getting the syntax approved and implemented
- Migrating to rustc support for the syntax
#12207 was updated to record these items so we don't lose track of them
more specific registry index not found msg
### What does this PR try to resolve?
covers #12576
### How should we test and review this PR?
test covers exact text, so a review and passing tests.
The previous status line was a little awkward in the way it combined
both counts. I don't think showing the directories is particularly
interesting, so they are only displayed when no files are deleted.
feat(cli): Add '-n' to dry-run
This came from #12638 and my many small frustrations from wanting to use `-n` and not being able to.
We do not have any existing `-n` flags for this to be confused with.
I would wager that `-n` is such an entrenched short flag in build tools that it would not make sense for us to use it with any other flag.
For a survey of where `-n` is used as a short, see https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Option-Table.html#Option-Table
feat: stabilize credential-process and registry-auth
Stabilization PR for `registry-auth` and `credential-process`.
Tracking approval of this stabilization is done in the via the FCP in [#8933](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/8933#issuecomment-1711990123). This PR is here to help reviewers of the FCP.
* Stabilizes `registry-auth` and `credential-process`
* Makes authenticated registries require a credential provider
* Adds stable documentation for credential providers and authenticated registries
Closes#8933Closes#10474
This came from #12638 and my many small frustrations from wanting to use
`-n` and not being able to.
We do not have any existing `-n` flags for this to be confused with.
I would wager that `-n` is such an entrenched short flag in build tools that it would
not make sense for us to use it with any other flag.
For a survey of where `-n` is used as a short, see
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Option-Table.html#Option-Table
feat(help): Add styling to help output
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Try to make `--help` output easier to parse by using terminal styling
Screenshots:
*(`nargo` is my shell script wrapping `cargo run --manifest-path cargo/Cargo.toml`)*
### How should we test and review this PR?
At this time, the only styling snapshotting library I know of is a pain to use, so testing this requires manually running the commands which I did. Screenshots are included for easier evaluation of the general idea.
Snapshotting of the plain text output ensures we don't have accidental formatting regressions from this change since the formatting isn't as obvious from looking at the code.
### Additional information
Traditionally, cargo has disabled clap's styled output. My assumed
reason is that cargo mixes custom help output with auto-generated and
you couldn't previously make it all styled.
Clap 4.2 allowed users to pass in strings styled using ANSI escape
codes, allowing us to pass in styled text that matches clap, unblocking this. In clap
4.4.1, clap gained the ability for the user to override the style.
In this PR, I decided to use the new 4.4.1 feature to style clap's
output to match the rest of cargo's output. Alternatively, we could use
a more subdue style that clap uses by default.
I used the `color-print` crate to allow something almost html-like for styling `&static str`. Alternatively, we could directly embed the ANSI escape codes harder to get write, harder to inspect), or we could do the styling at runtime and enable the `string` feature in clap.
I decided to *not* style `Arg::help` messages because
- It might be distracting to have the descriptions lit up like a
christmas tree
- It is a lot more work
The one exception I made was for `--list` since it is for a
psuedo-command (`...`) and I wanted to intentionally draw attention to
it.
#12593 made styling of `cargo -h` cleaner imo.
#12592 and #12594 were improvements I noticed while doing this.
Ues strip_prefix for cleaner code
### What does this PR try to resolve?
In https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/12629#pullrequestreview-1614154046 Ed pointed out how much cleaner the code can be using `strip_prefix`, so I found a bunch more places where we should be using it.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Internal refactor and test still pass.
fix: improve warning for both token & credential-provider
Cargo issues a warning when both a `credential-provider` and a `token` are configured for a registry.
This change removes the warning if the `credential-provider` is `cargo:token` since that *will* use the token. The warning message text is also tweaked to include the name of the `credential-provider` that's overriding the token.
fix(resolver): Make resolver behavior independent of package order
This address one of the problems mentioned in #12599
The intent behind the `path_pkg` check is to make sure we update
workspace members in the lockfile if their version number changed.
In this case, we don't need to recursively walk, because the change
doesn't affect dependencies. However, we also shouldn't *prevent*
recursive walks which is what we are doing today, both for packages
marked to keep and for packages that have been "poisoned". So we fix
this by moving that call after all recursive adds are complete so as to
not interfere with them.
This should not affect `Cargo.lock` at rest, so no upgrade compatibility concerns.
This just allows more packages to be considered available to change which can prevent unclear failures.
The main case I can think of that this does something "undesirable" is when wanting to prevent another "bug" from manifesting: the updating of git dependencies when updating workspace members (#12599). I think I'm ok with that as that needs to be looked into separately.
fix(help): Provide better commands heading for styling
In working on #12578, I felt it would be weird to style the entire statement about commands but it also felt weird to not style it. So this change explores an alternatively way of communicating the information.
This addresses the ordering issue of for one of the problems from #12599.
The intent behind the `path_pkg` check is to make sure we update
workspace members in the lockfile if their version number changed.
In this case, we don't need to recursively walk, because the change
doesn't affect dependencies. However, we also shouldn't *prevent*
recursive walks which is what we are doing today, both for packages
marked to keep and for packages that have been "poisoned". So we fix
this by moving that call after all recursive adds are complete so as to
not interfere with them.
In working on #12578, I felt it would be weird to style the entire
statement about commands but it also felt weird to not style it. So
this change explores an alternatively way of communicating the
information.
fix: add error for unsupported credential provider version
Cargo currently ignores the version in the `CredentialHello` message, and proceeds to use version `1` regardless of what the credential provider claims it can support.
This change does the following:
* Adds a new error if Cargo doesn't support any of the supported protocol versions offered by the provider.
* Kills the credential provider subprocess if it fails. This prevents it from hanging or printing spurious errors such as "broken pipe" when it's attempting to read the next JSON message.
* Adds a new test for an unsupported credential provider protocol.
In working on #12578, I'm focusing on each help string to decide how it
should be handled and I noticed this. It feels weird to explain
something in terms of another command's CLI, so I took `rustc --help`s
message and added `rustc` to clarify it.
Looking back, the flag was added in #2551 with the message we have
today. Nothing seems to really be said about it.
In reflecting on this, I'm not 100% convinced and am open to other
opinions.
fix(help): Remove redundant information from new/init
Auditing all of the `--help` in prep for #12578 and noticed that we list the VCS information twice, once on our end and once by clap.
fix(lints): Fail when overriding inherited lints
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Overriding of inherited lints was reserved for the future but as pointed out in https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/12115#issuecomment-1695293006, we aren't failing on these when we should but silently ignoring the overrides.
This turns it into a hard error.
In fixing this, I had to add a `#[serde(expecting)]` attribute to maintain behavior on an error case (otherwise it would say "expecting struct WorkspaceLints"). Since this drew the error message to my attention, I also tweaked it to make it more specific.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Commits are broken down by the relevant tests and fixes to make the intended behavior changes obvious.
cargo install: suggest --git when package name is url
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Improve the error message when specifying a URL for a package name in `cargo install`.
Fixes#10485
### How should we test and review this PR?
Just cargo test and trying a common case like `cargo install https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo`
### Additional information
I found this PR after finishing this one: #10522
But it seems have a larger scope to refactor some of the related code.
Perhaps this one would be easier to merge and that one could focus on the refactor, otherwise sorry for the noise and feel free to close.
I assume the reason these aren't all individual tests is test-time but
if we divide by success/failure, I'll need to duplicate things to handle
partial versions.
Overall, I feel like this makes the tests make more sense.
When working on cargo-upgrade, I found the meaning of `--aggressive`
confusing and named it `--recursive` there.
Renaming this in `cargo update` (with a backwards compatible alias) was
referenced in #12425.
refactor: Pull out cargo-add MSRV code for reuse
### What does this PR try to resolve?
#12078 added MSRV code in `cargo add`. Our assumption when writing it is that we'd need to generalize the code before reusing it in other places, like `cargo install`. This PR focused purely on that refactor because I'm hopeful it will be useful for other work I'm doing. Despite not having a user for this yet, I think the `cargo install` case is inevitable and I feel this does a bit to clean up MSRV related code by using a more specific type everywhere.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Each commit gradually progresses things along
fix(toml): Improve parse errors
### What does this PR try to resolve?
When we adopted `toml_edit`, we got TOML syntax errors that showed the context for where the error occurred. However, the work was not done to extend this to semantic errors reported by serde.
This updates `Cargo.toml` and `Cargo.lock` code to provide that context on semantic errors. `config.toml` is not done because the schema is decentralized.
In theory, this will also improve performance because we aren't having to allocate a lot of intermediate data to then throw away for every `Cargo.toml` we read.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Check by commit to see this change gradually.
- The `package.cargo-features` change was made to drop out dependence on `toml::Table` so we could do the direct deserialization
Create dedicated unstable flag for asymmetric-token
Asymmetric tokens are gated by `-Zcredential-process`. Since we're considering stabilizing that soon, this moves asymmetric token support to have its own unstable flag.
It was previously gated by `-Zregistry-auth`, and some of the docs were not updated when it moved.
r? `@Eh2406`
Before, we'd render the source for TOML syntax errors but not semantic errors.
Now we render for both.
Originally I changed `parse_document` to returned `T: DeserializeOwned`
but that adds an extra "could not parse TOML" which is both redundant
and makes it sound like its a syntax issue.
Generally, cargo avoids positional arguments. Mostly for the commands
that might forward arguments to another command, like `cargo test`.
It also allows some flexibility in turning flags into options.
For `cargo add` and `cargo remove`, we decided to accept positionals
because the motivations didn't seem to apply as much (similar to `cargo
install`).
This applies the pattern to `cargo update` as well which is in the same
category of commands as `cargo add` and `cargo remove`.
As for `--help` formatting, I'm mixed on whether `[SPEC]...` should be at the top like
other positionals or should be relegated to "Package selection". I went
with the latter mostly to make it easier to visualize the less common
choice.
Switching to a positional for `cargo update` (while keeping `-p` for
backwards compatibility) was referenced in #12425.
feat(resolver): **Very** preliminary MSRV resolver support
### What does this PR try to resolve?
A bare bones implementation of an MSRV resolver that is good enough for people running on nightly when they really need it but is not ready for general use.
Current limitations
- Does not honor `--ignore-version`
- Gives terrible error messages
- Nothing is done yet regarding `cargo install`
- Doesn't inform the user when choosing non-latest
These will be noted in #9930 on merge.
Implementation wise, this is yet another hack (sorry `@Eh2406).` Our expectation to get this GA is to refactor the resolver to make the cargo/resolver boundary look a little more like the cargo/pubgrub boundary so we can better control policy without any of these hacks which will also make having all of the policy we need for this easier to maintain.
This is a part of #9930
### How should we test and review this PR?
Per commit
Improve deserialization errors of untagged enums
### What does this PR try to resolve?
```toml
# .cargo/config.toml
[http]
ssl-version.min = false
```
**Before:**
```console
$ cargo check
error: data did not match any variant of untagged enum SslVersionConfig
```
**After:**
```console
$ cargo check
error: error in /path/to/.cargo/config.toml: could not load config key `http.ssl-version`
Caused by:
error in /path/to/.cargo/config.toml: `http.ssl-version.min` expected a string, but found a boolean
```
### How should we test and review this PR?
The first commit adds tests showing the pre-existing error messages — mostly just _"data did not match any variant of untagged enum T"_ with no location information. The second commit replaces all `#[derive(Deserialize)] #[serde(untagged)]` with Deserialize impls based on https://docs.rs/serde-untagged/0.1, showing the effect on the error messages.
Tested with `cargo test`, and by handwriting some bad .cargo/config.toml files and looking at the error produced by `rust-lang/cargo/target/release/cargo check`.
