Remove template custom filters feature #1822
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Signed-off-by: itowlson <ivan.towlson@fermyon.com>
itowlson
force-pushed
the
template-remove-custom-filters
branch
from
289ea99 to
c5476dc
Compare
lann
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2023
rylev
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2023
|
We've branched |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #1581.
This removes the template custom filters feature, allowing removal of the wit-bindgen-backport dependency. This is a breaking change and should be merged only into a major version. Templates containing custom filters will be skipped and reported on installation; if a user has an old template which users the feature, it will fail when run.
I retained the
custom_filtersfield in the TOML deserialisation so that we could provide a more meaningful error message than serde alone would do. Its contents are ignored though.For some reason the change set off a "large enum variant" lint even though it was making the large variant smaller, so there is an unrelated change in the PR for that.