### What does this PR try to resolve?
Cargo script considers itself part of the workspace if the script is
located in a sub-directory of a workspace (presumably since
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/15168). This becomes an issue
when using a custom registry that is defined in the `.cargo/config.toml`
within the workspace. Cargo script does not take that file into account
and fails with ``registry index was not found in any configuration:
`test-reg` ``.
### How should we test and review this PR?
This PR adds a regression test and makes cargo script ignore the
surrounding workspace.
The test ~~will fail without the fix in the second commit and~~ can be
used to reproduce the issue.
### Additional information
The issue started occurring with `nightly-2025-02-16`.
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/12207.
<!--
Thanks for submitting a pull request 🎉! Here are some tips for you:
* If this is your first contribution, read "Cargo Contribution Guide"
first:
https://doc.crates.io/contrib/
* Run `cargo fmt --all` to format your code changes.
* Small commits and pull requests are always preferable and easy to
review.
* If your idea is large and needs feedback from the community, read how:
https://doc.crates.io/contrib/process/#working-on-large-features
* Cargo takes care of compatibility. Read our design principles:
https://doc.crates.io/contrib/design.html
* When changing help text of cargo commands, follow the steps to
generate docs:
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/tree/master/src/doc#building-the-man-pages
* If your PR is not finished, set it as "draft" PR or add "WIP" in its
title.
* It's ok to use the CI resources to test your PR, but please don't
abuse them.
Explain the motivation behind this change.
A clear overview along with an in-depth explanation are helpful.
You can use `Fixes #<issue number>` to associate this PR to an existing
issue.
### How should we test and review this PR?
Demonstrate how you test this change and guide reviewers through your
PR.
With a smooth review process, a pull request usually gets reviewed
quicker.
If you don't know how to write and run your tests, please read the
guide:
https://doc.crates.io/contrib/tests
### Additional information
Other information you want to mention in this PR, such as prior arts,
future extensions, an unresolved problem, or a TODO list.
-->
### What does this PR try to resolve?
close https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/14831
In this PR, we added the `cargo pkgid` support for the cargo-script.
For the package itself:
```console
cargo pkgid --manifest-path foo.rs
path+file:///my-project/foo.rs/foo#0.86.0
```
For its dependence:
```console
cargo pkgid --manifest-path foo.rs -p sqlx
registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index#sqlx@0.7.4
```
### How should we test and review this PR?
I have updated the unit tests and also added more test cases for it.
### Additional information
None
PR #5335 added `autobins`, etc for #5330. Nowhere in there is
discussion of `autolib`.
Cargo script disables support for additional build-targets by disabling
discovery.
Except we don't have a way to disable discovery of `autolib`, leading to #14476.
By adding `autolib`, we can continue in that direction.
This also allows us to bypass inferring of libs on published packages,
like all other build-targets which were handled in #13849.
As this seems fairly low controversy, this insta-stabilizes the field.
In prior versions of Cargo, users will get an "unused manifest key"
warning.
For packags where this is set by `cargo publish`, the warning will be suppressed and things will work as normal.
For `cargo vendor`, the same except there will be some churn in the
vendored source as this field will now be set.
For local development, it should be rare to set `autolib` so the lack of
error by discovering a file when this is set shouldn't be a problem.
Fixes#14476
feat: add CARGO_MANIFEST_PATH env variable
Adds `CARGO_MANIFEST_PATH` variable as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/12207
Context: `CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR` is not very useful, because there is no `Cargo.toml` file when running a cargo script. In cases when multiple scripts are stored in the same folder, we can't tell which script exactly is being run using `CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`
This is for `cargo generate-lockfile` and when syncing the lockfile with
the manifest.
We still show it for `cargo update` because of `cargo update
--workspace`.
We hacked around this previously by filtering out the `num_pkgs==1` case
for single packages but this didn't help with workspaces.
While this is noisy and hides other deprecations, I figured deprecations would
make it easier for people to discover what tasks remain and allow us to
divide and conquer this work rather than doing a heroic PR.
In theory, this will be short lived and we'll go back to seeing
deprecations in our tests.
This is to help with #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.
This is a low-tech solution alternative to the options proposed in #4682
- Search `[[bin]]`s within all packages in the registry (which aren't
tracked atm), suggesting to `cargo install` what is found
- Check if `cargo-<cmd>` is in the registry, suggesting `cargo install
if it is
By suggesting `cargo search`, we are giving them a tool so they can
verify if the package is what they want (a `cargo info` would help as a
next step).
Is is needed?
- New users might not know of `cargo search` but they can search on
crates.io
- New users might not be aware of the `cargo-<cmd>` naming pattern
Seems like this can still offer some benefit
Fixes#4682
feat(embedded): Hack in code fence support
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This is to allow us to get feedback on the design proposed
[on zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Embedding.20cargo.20manifests.20in.20rust.20source/near/391427092)
to verify we want to make an RFC for this syntax.
````rust
#!/usr/bin/env cargo
```cargo
[dependencies]
clap = { version = "4.2", features = ["derive"] }
```
use clap::Parser;
#[derive(Parser, Debug)]
#[clap(version)]
struct Args {
#[clap(short, long, help = "Path to config")]
config: Option<std::path::PathBuf>,
}
fn main() {
let args = Args::parse();
println!("{:?}", args);
}
````
### How should we test and review this PR?
The tests were updated in a separate commit to ensure there was no regression while then migrating to the new syntax to make sure it worked.
This involves some future work
- Removing doc comment support
- Getting the syntax approved and implemented
- Migrating to rustc support for the syntax
#12207 was updated to record these items so we don't lose track of them
The previous status line was a little awkward in the way it combined
both counts. I don't think showing the directories is particularly
interesting, so they are only displayed when no files are deleted.
fix(embedded): Always generate valid package names
### What does this PR try to resolve?
The sanitization logic uses a placeholder for the first character that isn't valid in the first character position. #12329 took the approach of always using `_` which has the problem of mixing separators if the user used `-` or we had other placeholders to insert. Instead, this takes the approach of stripping the leading invalid characters and using a placeholder name if nothing is left.
Fixes#12330
### How should we test and review this PR?
Per-commit. The first adds tests so the change in behavior can be observed over each additional commit.
### Additional information
I was also hoping to make the binary name not use placeholders by setting `bin.name` to `file_stem` but then I got
```
Compiling s-h-w-c- v0.0.0 (/home/epage/src/personal/cargo/target/tmp/cit/t133/foo)
error: invalid character `'.'` in crate name: `s_h.w§c!`
error: invalid character `'§'` in crate name: `s_h.w§c!`
error: invalid character `'!'` in crate name: `s_h.w§c!`
error: could not compile `s-h-w-c-` (bin "s-h.w§c!") due to 3 previous errors
```
I decided to not get into what are or aren't valid characters according to rustc.
- `cargo pkgid` is unsupported because we can't (yet) generate valid
pkgids for embedded manifests. Adding support for this would be a
step towards workspace support
- `cargo package` and `cargo publish` are being deferred. These would
be more important for `[lib]` support. `cargo install` for `[[bin]]`s
is a small case and As single-file packages are fairly restrictive, a
`[[bin]]` is a lower priority.
