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.
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.
