Otherwise changing (add, removing, ...) features from the `[features]`
table would not cause rustc to be called with the new `--check-cfg`,
showing potentially outdated warnings.
Originally for #12801 we talked about a `cargo-util-manifest-schema` package
- `util` in the name to not clash with plugins
- manifest specific to keep the scope down
The problem is we have types that aren't manifest specific, like
- `PartialVersion` (currently slated for `cargo-util-semverext`)
- `RustVersion`
- `PackageIdSpec`
- `SourceKind` (soon)
Things get messy if we try to break things down into common packages.
Instead, I think it'd be useful to have a schemas package that has mods
for each type of schema, re-exporting what is needed.
Normally, componentizing your package by the layer in the stack is a
recipe for pain.
I don't think that'll apply here because these are meant to be so low
level.
The other big concern could be compile times. My hope is it won't be
too bad.
So this moves the `util/toml` types into the module and we can add more
in the future.
Have cargo add --optional <dep> create a <dep> = "dep:<dep> feature
### What does this PR try to resolve?
`cargo add --optional <dep>` would create a `<dep> = "dep:<dep>` feature iff
- `rust-version` is unset or is new enough for the syntax
- `dep:<dep>` doesn't already exist
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/11010
### How should we test and review this PR?
As the `dep:` syntax is only available starting with Rust 1.60. this pr maintains the previous usage convention in the earlier version.
run
```shell
cargo add --optional <dep>
```
with different rust-version to verify.
Add `--public` for `cargo add`
## What does this PR try to resolve?
Complete https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/13037
This PR want to add `--public/--no public` flag for `cargo add`
Note: this assumes we'll remove workspace inheritance support for `public` as it sounds like we'll be reverting it https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44663#issuecomment-1826474620. If we decide to keep workspace inheritance, we'll need to come back and update this.
## How should we test and review this PR?
Most of Code were reference `cargo add --optional`, So can reviewed the new code based on the part of `optional` code.
The new testcases were origin from the `cargo add --optional` part.
- `public` testcase：there is no dependencies and will be add `public` dependencies.
- `no_public` testcase: there is no dependencies and will be add `no_public` dependencies.
- `overwrite_public` testcase: the dependencies already exists but will be overwrite with `public`.
- `overwrite_no_public` testcase: the dependencies already exists but will be overwrite with `no_public`.
- `overwrite_public_with_no_public` testcase: the dependencies already marked as `no_public` and will be overwrite with `public`.
- `overwrite_no_public_with_public` testcase: the dependencies already marked as `public` and will be overwrite with `no_public`.
Fixed uninstall a running binary failed on Windows
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/3364
The problem reproduce when you try to uninstall a running binary and it will failed on Windows, this is because that cargo had already remove the installed binary tracker information in disk, and next to remove the running binary but it is not allowed in Windows. And to the worst, you can not uninstall the binary already and only to reinstall it by the `--force` flag.
### How to solve the issue?
This PR try to make the uninstall a binary more reasonable that only after remove the binary sucessfully then remove the tracker information on binary and make the remove binary one by one.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Add testcase 0fd4fd357b
- install the `foo`
- run `foo` in another thread.
- try to uninstall running `foo` and only failed in Windows.
- wait the `foo` finish, uninstall `foo`
- install the `foo`
### Additional information
Don't filter on workspace members when scraping doc examples
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/13074.
I confirmed locally that it fixed the issue in docs.rs.
cc `@willcrichton`
r? `@epage`
Fixes error count display is different when there's only one error left
### What does this PR try to resolve?
When there's only 1 error left, the number 1 appears in the output so that it scans the same as the output when there's more than 1 error, so:
```
error: could not compile `crate` (lib test) due to 1 previous error
```
instead of the current:
```
error: could not compile `crate` (lib test) due to a previous error
```
Fixes#12390
rustc related PR [#114759](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114759)
fix: reorder `--remap-path-prefix` flags for `-Zbuild-std`
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Order of `--remap-path-prefix` flags is important for `-Zbuild-std`.
We want to show `/rustc/<hash>/library/std` instead of `std-0.0.0`.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#117839
### How should we test and review this PR?
Follow the steps in rust-lang/rust#117839, or run
```
CARGO_RUN_BUILD_STD_TESTS=true cargo +nightly t --test build-std
```
to verify.
Handle $message_type in JSON diagnostics
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Unblocks https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115691.
Without this change, Cargo's testsuite fails in `doc::doc_message_format` and `metabuild::metabuild_failed_build_json`.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Tested with and without https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115691.
In Cargo repo: `cargo test --test testsuite`
In Rust repo: `x.py test src/tools/cargo` (separately on master and $message_type PR)
This is an alternative to #12158's `CARGO_WORKSPACE_DIR` that was
implementing the solution to #3946 that previously discussed in the
cargo team meeting.
`CARGO_WORKSPACE_DIR` is a bit awkward to document / describe because
its the effective workspace directory of the thing being built.
If the thing being built doesn't have a workspace, it falls back to
`CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`.
It would also be hard to take into account what the
`CARGO_WORKSPACE_DIR` would be for path dependencies into foreign
workspaces *and* it wouldn't solve the problem the user is having.
What the user really wants is the CWD of rustc when it is invoked.
This is much simpler to describe and is accurate when using a path
dependency to a foreign package.
Because the CWD is a much simpler mechanism to talk about, I figured we
could diverge from our prior consensus and make it always present,
rather than limiting it to tests.
Remaining work for #3946: get this stabilized
Exited with hard error when custom build file no existence or not in package
## What does this PR try to resolve?
Fixed https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/11383
## How should we test and review this PR?
Add test `build_script_outside_pkg_root`, this will check `custom_build.rs` existence and whether in the package root, if not then exited with a hard error
## Additional information
The code just handle the `custom build` target that i know how to test it. Other target type is skipped.
If the only path is a loop then counted as the shortest path.
This is a fix for #12941
This graph data structure is used to store dependency DAGs. Where each edge represents a dependency from a package to the package that fulfilled the dependency. Different parts of the resolver store this data in opposite directions, sometimes packages point at the things that depend on them other times packages point to the parents that required them. Error messages often need to report on why a package is in the graph, either by walking up toward parents or down toward children depending on how this graph is stored. #12678 unified the two different walking implementations, and replace them with a breadth first search so as to find the shortest path. This code ignored when edge pointed at a package that had already been reached, because that generally describes a longer path to an existing package.
Unfortunately, when I said this was a DAG that was a simplification. There can be cycles introduced as dev-dependencies. The existing code would reasonably ignore the cycles figuring that if we continue searching we would eventually find the root package (a package that nothing depended on). Missing the possibility that the root package created the cycle.
Now we search through the entire graph looking for a root package. If we do not find a root package we report the path to the last package we processed.
fix(resolver): Prefer MSRV, rather than ignore incompatible
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This is another experiment for #9930.
Comparing preferring over exclusively using MSRV compatible:
Benefits
- Better error messages
- `--ignore-rust-version` is implicitly sticky
Downsides
- Can't backtrack for MSRV compatible version
- Still requires workspace-wide MSRV (compared to our desired end state of declaring MSRV as yet another dependency)
### How should we test and review this PR?
### Additional information
Note: `--ignore-rust-version` is not yet implemented for the resolver.
This builds on #12930
This is another experiment for #9930.
Comparing preferring over exclusively using MSRV compatible:
Benefits
- Better error messages
- `--ignore-rust-version` is implicitly sticky
Downsides
- Can't backtrack for MSRV compatible version
- Still requires workspace-wide MSRV (compared to our desired end state of declaring MSRV as yet another dependency)
This builds on #12930
Before, when running `cargo update <member>`, we'd not reuse the
previous resolve result and when the resolver started walking into the
dependencies, it would do a git fetch.
Now, we won't even try to resolve the workspace members and so we won't
look at those dependencies and do git fetch.
This will make `cargo update <workspace-member>`
match `cargo update --workspace`.
I considered whether there were other ways of handling this but I
figured aiming for consistency in approaches was the best way.
We can investigate improving those approaches separately.
There are other discrepancies in the different code paths (handling of
patches, adding sources) but I'm deferring looking over those.
Between this and #12602, this should finnally resolve#12599.
Fixes#12599
Only filter out target if its in the package root
### What does this PR try to resolve?
Only filter out target if its in the package root. Fixed https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/12790
### How should we test and review this PR?
Add two testcase in tests/testsuite/package.rs for this PR.
- `include_files_called_target_project` testcase test the logic for none git repository. By the way, our PR was based on git repository, so this testcase was a little irrelevant.
- `include_files_called_target_git` testcase was made for git repository. There are two cases here, one is the target in the uncommitted state, at this time should not be included, and one is the target in the committed state, at this time should be included
### Additional information
This fixes an issue where `--quiet` doesn't work with commands that have
subcommands. This is because `config_configure` only looks at the global
and top-level subcommand, and not deeper subcommands. The issue was that
`--quiet` was not defined as a global flag. This was changed in
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/6358 in order to give a better
help message for `cargo test --quiet`. I don't remember if clap just
didn't support overriding at the time, or if we just didn't know how it
worked. Anyways, it seems to work to override it now, so I think it
should be fine to mark it as global.
This should bring in `--quiet` more in-line with how `--verbose` works.
This means that `--quiet` is now accepted with `cargo report`,
`cargo help`, and `cargo config`.
This also fixes `--quiet` with `cargo clean gc`.
This should also help with supporting `--quiet` with the new `cargo
owner` subcommands being added in
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/11879.
Fixes#12957
This was requested to separate the interaction of `cargo clean` and the
cleaning of global cache data, and to minimize the impact of this
initial implementation.
This adds a garbage collector which will remove old files from cargo's
global cache.
A general overview of the changes here:
- `cargo::core::global_cache_tracker` contains the `GlobalCacheTracker`
which handles the interface to a sqlite database which stores
timestamps of the last time a file was used.
- `DeferredGlobalLastUse` is a type that implements an optimization for
collecting last-use timestamps so that they can be flushed to disk all
at once.
- `cargo::core::gc` contains the `Gc` type which is the interface for
performing garbage collection. It coordinates with the
`GlobalCacheTracker` for determining what to delete.
- Garbage collection can either be automatic or manual. The automatic
garbage collection supports some config options for defining when
it runs and how much it deletes.
- Manual garbage collection can be performed via options to `cargo
clean`.
- `cargo clean` uses the new package cache locking system to coordinate
access to the package cache to prevent interference with other cargo
commands running concurrently.
For `cargo install` we'll now show a more specific parse error for
semver, much like other parts of cargo.
This came out of my work on #12801. I was looking at what might be
appropriate to put in a `cargo-util-semver` crate and realized we have
the `ToSemver` trait that exists but doesn't do much, so I dropped it.
refactor(toml): Pull out the schema
### What does this PR try to resolve?
On its own, this PR is a net negative for readability / complexity. It moves all of the serde types related to manifest from `toml/mod.rs` to `toml/schema.rs`, leaving a lot of the functions and some trait implementations back in `toml/mod.rs` (some basic functions that made sense for the type on their own were also moved).
So why do this? This is an ooch towards having the schema broken out into a separate package (#12801). To do this, we need to
- Identify what all types need to be put in the package. This refactor highlights the dependence on `RustVersion` and `PackageIdSpec`
- Highlights what functionality we need to find a new home for
Follow up PRs would
- Find better homes for the logic in `toml/mod.rs`, moving us away from having `impl schema::Type` blocks.
- Pull out a `src/cargo/util_semver` package to own `PartialVersion` (at least) as prep for making a `cargo-util-semver` package
- Move `RustVersion` to `manifest-toml/schema.rs`, deciding what functionality needs to move with the type
- Move or copy `PackageIdSpec` into `manfest-toml/schema.rs`, deciding what functionality remain in `core/` and what moves over
- Move `toml/schema.rs` to `src/cargo/util_schema`
- Actually make `cargo-util-semver` and `cargo-util-manifest-schema` packages
So why do this now? This is a big change! By being incremental
- Reduce churn for me and others
- Be easier to review
- Collect feedback as we go on the whole plan to avoid more painful changes later
We *can* back this out if needed but the further we go, the more painful it will be.
### How should we test and review this PR?
### Additional information
fix(cli): Clarify --test is for targets, not test functions
We already refer to test targets as "test targets" instead of "tests" in `--test` but not `--tests` or in the error output. This makes it uniformly refer to them as "test targets", making it clearer that these aren't test functions.
Fixes#7864
We already refer to test targets as "test targets" instead of "tests" in
`--test` but not `--tests` or in the error output. This makes it
uniformly refer to them as "test targets", making it clearer that these
aren't test functions.
Fixes#7864
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.
