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.
