The goal is that we shouldn't interefere with end-user output when
"cargo script"s are used programmatically. The only way to detect this
is when piping. CI will also look like this.
My thought is that if someone does want to do `#!/usr/bin/env -S cargo -v`, it
should have a consistent meaning between local development
(`cargo run --manifest-path`) and "script mode" (`cargo`), so I
effectively added a new verbosity level in these cases. To get normal
output in all cases, add a `-v` like the tests do. Do `-vv` if you want
the normal `-v` mode. If you want it always quiet, do `--quiet`.
I want to see the default verbosity for interactive "script mode" a bit
quieter to the point that all normal output cargo makes is cleared before
running the built binary. I am holding off on that now as that could
tie into bigger conversations / refactors
(see https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/Re-thinking.20cargo's.20output).
fix(script): Process config relative to script, not CWD
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This is part of the work for #12207.
When you put in your path `foo.rs`:
```rust
#!/usr/bin/env cargo
fn main() {}
```
You expect it to build once and then repeatedly run the same version. However, `.cargo/config.toml` doesn't work like that (normally). It is an environment file, like `.env`, and is based on your current working directory. So if you run `foo.rs` from within a random project, it might rebuild due to RUSTFLAGS in `.cargo/config.toml`.
I had some concern about whether this current behavior is right or not and [noted this in the Pre-RFC](https://github.com/epage/cargo-script-mvs/blob/main/0000-cargo-script.md#unresolved-questions). This came up again while we were [discussing editions on zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/cargo.20script.20and.20edition). In looking further into this, it turns out we already have precedence for this with `cargo install --path <path>`.
### How should we test and review this PR?
The second commit has the fix, the docs, and a change to a test (from the first commit) to show that the fix actually changed behavior.
This is to avoid possible name collisions. For example, a user
creates a file called `.cargo/cache`, and then in the future
cargo wants to create a directory called `.cargo/cache/`, that
would collide with what the user specified. Restricting to `.toml`
extensions would avoid that since we won’t make a directory named
with a `.toml` extension.
fix: Allow embedded manifests in all commands
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This is a part of #12207.
One of the goals is for embedded manifests to be a first class citizen. If you have a script, you should be able to run tests on it, for example.
This expands the error check from just `Cargo.toml` to also single-file packages so you can use it in `--manifest-path`.
This, however, does mean that these *can* be used in places that likely won't work yet, like `cargo publish`.
### How should we test and review this PR?
By commit. We introduce tests for basic commands and then implement and refine the support for this.
### Additional information
Other information you want to mention in this PR, such as prior arts,
future extensions, an unresolved problem, or a TODO list.
feat(cli): Support `cargo Cargo.toml`
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This is making the assumption that we want full unity between places accepting both single-file packages and `Cargo.toml` for #12207. This has not been brought up before in any of the discussions (Internals, eRFC), so I can understand if there are concerns about this and we decide to hold off.
We might want to resolve symlinks before this so people can have a prettier name for these.
### How should we test and review this PR?
The test for this was added in a commit before the actual change, letting people see how the behavior changed.
I originally centralized the error reporting until I realized it likely
is intentionally not centralized so we report errors in terms of the
arguments the user provided.
This puts the lockfile back into a target directory in the users home,
like before #12268.
Another idea that came up was to move the workspace root to be in the
target directory (which would effectively be like pre-#12268) but I
think that is a bit hacky / misleading.
This does mean that the lockfile is buried away from the user and they
can't pass it along with their script. In most cases I've dealt with,
this would be fine. When the lockfile is needed, they will also most
likely have a workspace, so it shoud have a local lockfile in that case.
The inbetween case is something that needs further evaluation for
whether we should handle it and how.
Enable `doctest-in-workspace` by default
This stabilizes and enables the `-Z doctest-in-workspace` flag by default.
Also adds another testcase to make sure that the `include!()` and `file!()` macros interact well together.
fixes#9427
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46372
This stabilizes and enables the `-Z doctest-in-workspace` flag by default.
Also adds another testcase to make sure that the `include!()` and `file!()` macros interact well together.
fix(embedded): Don't auto-discover build.rs files
With #12268, we moved the manifest root to be the scripts parent
directory, making it so auto-discovery might pick some things up.
We previously ensured `auto*` don't pick things up but missed `build.rs`
This is now addressed.
fix(embeded): Don't pollute the scripts dir with `target/`
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This PR is part of #12207.
This specific behavior was broken in #12268 when we stopped using an intermediate
`Cargo.toml` file.
Unlike pre-#12268,
- We are hashing the path, rather than the content, with the assumption
that people change content more frequently than the path
- We are using a simpler hash than `blake3` in the hopes that we can get
away with it
Unlike the Pre-RFC demo
- We are not forcing a single target dir for all scripts in the hopes
that we get #5931
### How should we test and review this PR?
A new test was added specifically to show the target dir behavior, rather than overloading an existing test or making all tests sensitive to changes in this behavior.
### Additional information
In the future, we might want to resolve symlinks before we get to this point
With #12268, we moved the manifest root to be the scripts parent
directory, making it so auto-discovery might pick some things up.
We previously ensured `auto*` don't pick things up but missed `build.rs`
This is now addressed.
The `-Znext-lockfile-bump` is added, so we can prepare for all
lockfile format changes and then stabilize then all at once.
`-Znext-lockfile-bump` is not intended for using outside our test
suite and development. Hence it's hidden.
This was broken in #12268 when we stopped using an intermediate
`Cargo.toml` file.
Unlike pre-#12268,
- We are hashing the path, rather than the content, with the assumption
that people change content more frequently than the path
- We are using a simpler hash than `blake3` in the hopes that we can get
away with it
Unlike the Pre-RFC demo
- We are not forcing a single target dir for all scripts in the hopes
that we get #5931
To parse the manifest, we have to write it out so our regular manifest
loading code could handle it. This updates the manifest parsing code to
handle it.
This doesn't mean this will work everywhere in all cases though. For
example, ephemeral workspaces parses a manifest from the SourceId and
these won't have valid SourceIds.
As a consequence, `Cargo.lock` and `CARGO_TARGET_DIR` are changing from being next to
the temp manifest to being next to the script. This still isn't the
desired behavior but stepping stones.
This also exposes the fact that we didn't disable `autobins` like the
documentation says we should.
Background: the hash existed for sharing a target directory. That code isn't
implemented yet and a per-user build cache might remove the need for it,
so let's remove it for now and more carefully weigh adding it back in.
Immediate: This reduces the chance of hitting file length issues on Windows.
Generally: This is a bit hacky and for an official solution, we should
probably try to find a better way. This could become more important as
single-file packages are allowed in workspaces.
Emit error when users try to use a toolchain via the `add` or `install` command
Running `cargo install +nightly` or `cargo add +nightly` does not actually use the nightly toolchain, but the user won't know until the compilation fails. With this PR, an error is emitted if the `install` and `add` command is given a crate name
that starts with a `+` as we assume the user's intention was to use a certain toolchain instead of installing/adding a crate.
Example:
<img width="758" alt="image" src="https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/assets/45989466/16e59436-32ee-49ee-9933-8b68b176c09d">
Fixes#10362
This commit adds support for passing the keyword "default"
to either the CLI "--jobs" argument on the "[build.jobs]"
section of ".cargo/config".
This is dony by:
1. Changing the "jobs" config type to an enum that holds
a String or an Integer(i.e. i32).
2. Matching the enum & casting it to an integer
Signed-off-by: Charalampos Mitrodimas <charmitro@gmail.com>
