Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(msrv): Report all incompatible packages, not just a random one #13514

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 1, 2024

Conversation

epage
Copy link
Contributor

@epage epage commented Mar 1, 2024

What does this PR try to resolve?

In #9930, it recommended improving the error for incompatible packages
so people can better get to the root of the problem.
For example, you might get an error about clap_lex but resolving the
error for the higher level clap could make the problem with clap_lex
go away.

Because I generally saw earlier packages in the graph reported, I
assumed we were reporting these errors bottom up.
It turns out, we are reporting them in the UnitGraphs order, which is
non-deterministic because it is built on a HashMap.

So this adds determinism and shows all incompatible dependencies
(not just the bottom or the root).

How should we test and review this PR?

This is a first step.
We might find that we still want to only include the shallowest units,
rather than all.
At that point, we can add the complexity to address this by walking the
unit graph.

We could also further improve this by querying the index to suggest
compatible versions of packages.

The multi-package test wasn't split out into its own commit because hat would have required fixing the non-determinism one way to then just revert it when we fix it this way.

Additional information

In rust-lang#9930, it recommended improving the error for incompatible packages
so people can better get to the root of the problem.
For example, you might get an error about `clap_lex` but resolving the
error for the higher level `clap` could make the problem with `clap_lex`
go away.

Because I generally saw earlier packages in the graph reported, I
assumed we were reporting these errors bottom up.
It turns out, we are reporting them in the `UnitGraph`s order, which is
non-deterministic because it is built on a `HashMap`.

So this adds determinism and shows all incompatible dependencies
(not just the bottom or the root).
This is a first step.
We might find that we still want to only include the shallowest units,
rather than all.
At that point, we can add the complexity to address this by walking the
unit graph.

We could also further improve this by querying the index to suggest
compatible versions of packages.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 1, 2024

r? @weihanglo

rustbot has assigned @weihanglo.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Mar 1, 2024
fn dependency_tree_rust_version_newer_than_rustc() {
Package::new("baz", "0.0.1")
.dep("bar", "0.0.1")
.rust_version("1.2345.0")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: choose a larger version. I believe Rust will last over 300 years!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just kidding 🤪

@weihanglo
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

Thanks!

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 1, 2024

📌 Commit 90a681d has been approved by weihanglo

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 1, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 1, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 90a681d with merge db609a5...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 1, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: weihanglo
Pushing db609a5 to master...

@bors bors merged commit db609a5 into rust-lang:master Mar 1, 2024
21 checks passed
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 2, 2024
Update cargo

12 commits in 8964c8ccff6e420e2a38b8696d178d69fab84d9d..f772ec0224d3755ce52ac5128a80319fb2eb45d0
2024-02-27 19:22:46 +0000 to 2024-03-01 22:57:35 +0000
- feat(toml): Warn on unset Edition (rust-lang/cargo#13505)
- fix(msrv): Report all incompatible packages, not just a random one (rust-lang/cargo#13514)
- refactor: abstract `std::fs` away from on-disk index cache (rust-lang/cargo#13515)
- chore(deps): update compatible (rust-lang/cargo#13507)
- chore(deps): update rust crate rusqlite to 0.31.0 (rust-lang/cargo#13510)
- [docs]: Clarify vendored sources as read-only and way to modify (rust-lang/cargo#13512)
- chore(deps): update rust crate supports-hyperlinks to v3 (rust-lang/cargo#13511)
- refactor: Clarify more Config -> Context (rust-lang/cargo#13506)
- test: Make `edition` explicit in packages (rust-lang/cargo#13504)
- Add all unit's children recursively for `doc.extern-map` option (rust-lang/cargo#13481)
- fix(rustc): Always pass --edition to rustc (rust-lang/cargo#13499)
- Silently ignore `cargo::rustc-check-cfg` to avoid MSRV annoyance when stabilizing `-Zcheck-cfg` (rust-lang/cargo#13438)

r? ghost
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants