feat(resolve): Tell the user the style of resovle done #13754
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is to help with rust-lang#9930 Example changes: ```diff -[LOCKING] 4 packages +[LOCKING] 4 packages to latest version -[LOCKING] 2 packages +[LOCKING] 2 packages to latest Rust 1.60.0 compatible versions -[LOCKING] 2 packages +[LOCKING] 2 packages to earliest versions ``` Benefits - The package count is of "added" packages and this makes that more logically clear - This gives users transparency into what is happening, especially with - what rust-version is use - the transition to this feature in the new edition - whether the planned config was applied or not (as I don't want it to require an MSRV bump) - Will make it easier in tests to show what changed - Provides more motiviation to show this message in `cargo update` and `cargo install` (that will be explored in a follow up PR) This does come at the cost of more verbose output but hopefully not too verbose. This is why I left off other factors, like avoid-dev-deps.
|
r? @weihanglo rustbot has assigned @weihanglo. Use |
rustbot
added
Command-generate-lockfile
S-waiting-on-review
weihanglo
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2024
epage
force-pushed
the
resolve-type
branch
2 times, most recently
from
05ce775 to
1876326
Compare
weihanglo
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2024
|
Thanks! @bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2024
feat(update): Include a Locking message ### What does this PR try to resolve? This extends #13561 to `cargo update`. I previously left it out because the locking message was redundant. However the `Locking` message has been extended in #13754 to include the resolving policy which can be a useful point of interest (e.g. "why does `cargo update` do nothing? Oh, `-Zminimal-versions` is enabled"). I still left out the message for `--precise` because the user is overriding all of that. I'd still like to extend all of this to `cargo install` (and maybe all resolves) but that is taking more investigation. ### How should we test and review this PR? ### Additional information
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2024
Update cargo 11 commits in 48eca1b164695022295ce466b64b44e4e0228b08..6f06fe908a5ee0f415c187f868ea627e82efe07d 2024-04-12 21:16:36 +0000 to 2024-04-16 18:47:44 +0000 - fix(toml): Error on `[project]` in Edition 2024 (rust-lang/cargo#13747) - feat(update): Include a Locking message (rust-lang/cargo#13759) - chore(deps): update rust crate gix to 0.62.0 [security] (rust-lang/cargo#13760) - test(schemas): Ensure tests cover the correct case (rust-lang/cargo#13761) - feat(resolve): Tell the user the style of resovle done (rust-lang/cargo#13754) - Make sure to also wrap the initial `-vV` invocation (rust-lang/cargo#13659) - docs: update `checkout` GitHub action version (rust-lang/cargo#13757) - Recategorize cargo test's `--doc` flag under "Target Selection" (rust-lang/cargo#13756) - Reword sentence describing workspace toml for clarity (rust-lang/cargo#13753) - docs(ref): Update unstable docs for msrv-policy (rust-lang/cargo#13751) - refactor(config): Consistently use kebab-case (rust-lang/cargo#13748) r? ghost
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2024
Update cargo 11 commits in 48eca1b164695022295ce466b64b44e4e0228b08..6f06fe908a5ee0f415c187f868ea627e82efe07d 2024-04-12 21:16:36 +0000 to 2024-04-16 18:47:44 +0000 - fix(toml): Error on `[project]` in Edition 2024 (rust-lang/cargo#13747) - feat(update): Include a Locking message (rust-lang/cargo#13759) - chore(deps): update rust crate gix to 0.62.0 [security] (rust-lang/cargo#13760) - test(schemas): Ensure tests cover the correct case (rust-lang/cargo#13761) - feat(resolve): Tell the user the style of resovle done (rust-lang/cargo#13754) - Make sure to also wrap the initial `-vV` invocation (rust-lang/cargo#13659) - docs: update `checkout` GitHub action version (rust-lang/cargo#13757) - Recategorize cargo test's `--doc` flag under "Target Selection" (rust-lang/cargo#13756) - Reword sentence describing workspace toml for clarity (rust-lang/cargo#13753) - docs(ref): Update unstable docs for msrv-policy (rust-lang/cargo#13751) - refactor(config): Consistently use kebab-case (rust-lang/cargo#13748) r? ghost
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR try to resolve?
This is to help with #9930
Example changes:
Benefits
logically clear
require an MSRV bump)
cargo updateandcargo install(that will be explored in a follow up PR)This does come at the cost of more verbose output but hopefully not too
verbose. This is why I left off other factors, like avoid-dev-deps.
How should we test and review this PR?
Additional information