fix(json-msg): use pkgid spec in in JSON messages #13311
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
|
r? @epage (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
A-build-execution
|
I can see the value of keeping these consistent and we've already standardized the syntax, so lets go for it @bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2024
fix(json-msg): use pkgid spec in in JSON messages
weihanglo
force-pushed
the
pkgid-json-message
branch
from
273168c
to
7bfbcfb
Compare
In 12914 we stabilized pkgid spec as unique package identifier for `cargo metadata`. However, we forgot to make the same change to JSON message format[^1]. This PR does so. Note that the `package_id` field in JSON message is not clearly stated as "opaque", so it might be considered as a breaking change to some extent. [^1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/reference/external-tools.html#compiler-messages
weihanglo
force-pushed
the
pkgid-json-message
branch
from
7bfbcfb
to
ad1a3b3
Compare
It basically succeeded on my fork. |
|
@bors r=epage |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2024
Update cargo 2 commits in 1cff2ee6b92e0ad3f87c44b70b28f788b2528b3c..1ae631085f01c1a72d05df1ec81f3759a8360042 2024-01-16 16:56:57 +0000 to 2024-01-17 17:26:41 +0000 - fix(json-msg): use pkgid spec in in JSON messages (rust-lang/cargo#13311) - doc(features): Highlight the non-blocking feature gating technique (rust-lang/cargo#13307) r? oli-obk Could you check if this fixes miri build?
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2024
Update cargo 2 commits in 1cff2ee6b92e0ad3f87c44b70b28f788b2528b3c..1ae631085f01c1a72d05df1ec81f3759a8360042 2024-01-16 16:56:57 +0000 to 2024-01-17 17:26:41 +0000 - fix(json-msg): use pkgid spec in in JSON messages (rust-lang/cargo#13311) - doc(features): Highlight the non-blocking feature gating technique (rust-lang/cargo#13307) r? oli-obk Could you check if this fixes miri build?
|
I noticed that the id format is different in Does this version not yet include this fix? Or it is another bug? |
|
rust-lang/rust#120071 needs to be in your nightly to have them align. |
|
Thanks for fixing this! Just wanted to mention that nextest matches up the package IDs from cargo metadata with the ones from JSON messages, so having consistency between the two is essential. |
|
The fix is now available on Sorry for overlooking the consistency issue in the first place 😞. |
Nadrieril
added a commit
to Nadrieril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 21, 2024
…acrum fix(rust-analyzer): use new pkgid spec to compare Starting from rust-lang/cargo#13311, Cargo's compiler artifact message uses Package ID specification as package's identifier format. Zulip topic: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/proc-macro-test.20bootstrap.20and.20pkgid.20JSON cc `@ehuss`
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 21, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#120084 - weihanglo:pkgid-spec, r=Mark-Simulacrum fix(rust-analyzer): use new pkgid spec to compare Starting from rust-lang/cargo#13311, Cargo's compiler artifact message uses Package ID specification as package's identifier format. Zulip topic: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/proc-macro-test.20bootstrap.20and.20pkgid.20JSON cc `@ehuss`
lnicola
pushed a commit
to lnicola/rust-analyzer
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 21, 2024
fix(rust-analyzer): use new pkgid spec to compare Starting from rust-lang/cargo#13311, Cargo's compiler artifact message uses Package ID specification as package's identifier format. Zulip topic: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/proc-macro-test.20bootstrap.20and.20pkgid.20JSON cc `@ehuss`
5 tasks
lnicola
pushed a commit
to lnicola/rust-analyzer
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 7, 2024
fix(rust-analyzer): use new pkgid spec to compare Starting from rust-lang/cargo#13311, Cargo's compiler artifact message uses Package ID specification as package's identifier format. Zulip topic: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/proc-macro-test.20bootstrap.20and.20pkgid.20JSON cc `@ehuss`
RalfJung
pushed a commit
to RalfJung/rust-analyzer
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2024
fix(rust-analyzer): use new pkgid spec to compare Starting from rust-lang/cargo#13311, Cargo's compiler artifact message uses Package ID specification as package's identifier format. Zulip topic: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/proc-macro-test.20bootstrap.20and.20pkgid.20JSON cc `@ehuss`
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.
What does this PR try to resolve?
In #12914 we stabilized pkgid spec as unique package identifier for
cargo metadata. However, we forgot to make the same change toJSON message format1. This PR does so.
Note that the
package_idfield in JSON message is not clearly statedas "opaque", so it might be considered as a breaking change to some extent.
How should we test and review this PR?
If we aren't sure about stabilizing this, we may need to revert #12914 as well.
Additional information
Zulip "miri" stream: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/269128-miri/topic/Cron.20Job.20Failure.20.28miri.2C.202024-01.29
Footnotes
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/cargo/reference/external-tools.html#compiler-messages ↩