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.
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.
