-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
Bug7346/transitive patches #7452
Conversation
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Eh2406 (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
This looks like the change I had in mind! Thank you! There is a lot of context to understand to make this change. What worked well to "know more"? What did not? Where could we document more? What would you like more explanation on? |
📌 Commit f7bfd9d has been approved by |
Bug7346/transitive patches Fixes #7346. A cursory comparison between current stable and nightly shows that projects with this topology resolve similarly. If there are other behaviors I should test, I'd be happy to expand that section. This is a pretty focused change, though, so I'm not sure what else there is to break. Sorry about the delay in putting this PR together. Good news is I know more than I did last week.
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Okay so. Sorry about the delay on getting back to you, @Eh2406. It's been hard to tease my thoughts into a form that will (hopefully) be immediately valuable, and things were getting muddy. Rather than write a novel, I'm going to just clean up my outline of impressions, and hand that to you. We can drill down into specific pieces if more detail would be useful.
|
This is grate and it all rings true to my experience! Let me give some inline feedback, in the hope it will keep the conversation going.
So true, not sure what to do. We have discussed working on splitting out subcrates, but it is a lot of work and slow going. Entropy and all.
Hmm... good point. Maybe we can add comments. The hard part is guessing what state reader will want explained. Do you feel up to a PR with those kinds of questions as comments? If so I can work to replace your questions with the answers.
This rings true, but not sure I know how to proceed without descending into the particular.
This gets me every time too. How to make it better I wunder.
This is mostly historical. As I understand it @alexcrichton personality does not find this kind of open box testing helpful for him but is open to adding it when others find it helpful. (sorry Alex for putting words in your mouth.) I would be open to adding some to the Resolver, making this more testable may help with the "tight coupling".
Big thanks to all those that made this happen! As I recall @dwijnand did a lot of work on this, but the bonese predate me.
Agread. I get the impression we don't spend much time organizing them. As long as a test gets run on CI, we don't pay too much attention to were it is. Part of the problem is that loats of the test have cross cutting interactions that make it hard to categorize.
I have never gotten a debugger to to anything useful on rust code in general. So it is possible that we are not making it eazy. Which of these threads of conversation do you want to pursue? How can I help? |
Heh no worries but this sounds right to me! I haven't personally written a ton of these tests but I don't want to stop anyone from writing tests, and I agree that especially in the context of the resolver having unit tests is extremely useful! |
Fixes #7346.
A cursory comparison between current stable and nightly shows that projects with this topology resolve similarly. If there are other behaviors I should test, I'd be happy to expand that section. This is a pretty focused change, though, so I'm not sure what else there is to break.
Sorry about the delay in putting this PR together. Good news is I know more than I did last week.