This is a follow up to #14846 which changed `run` to return the
`RawOutput`.
Reasons I didn't "update" some code to the new `run` return value
- We were actually using `ProcessBuilder::exec_with_output` and I didn't
want to disentangle what it would take to switch to `Execs`
- We did processing on the `Result` and I didn't want to check how that
could be updated
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.
Between rust-lang/rust#126810 and rust-lang/rust#126810 the output of rustc for resolution errors is going to change in such a way that some existing cargo tests will fail. Change them to support both the current and future output, so that those PRs can land in `rustc`.
This is partial revert of #14185
(27062476a86e864479ef6bde1828c624b643de4b)
Although the changes made in that commit are valid, for the same reason
mentioned in the comment https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/14181#discussion_r1667089718,
"People are unlikely to see these comments when updating snapshots".
Therefore, it would be better to revert these parts.
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.
Previously if a value from `--package` flag contains `?`, Cargo
considered it as a glob pattern. However, staring from 12933 the
Package Id Spec has been extended to accept `?` for git sources.
This PR adjust accordingly to accept `?` from `--package` flag
when it is a valid Package Id Spec.
Before the default was hardcoded to `true`. The problem was that means
that to remove the `package.version` boilerplate, you had to add
`package.publish = false` boilerplate.
To make the errors easier to understand in this situation, I err on the
side of encouraging people to put `publish = true` in their manifests.
By making this change, we also unblock "cargo script" /
`Cargo.toml` unifying the handling of `package.publish`.
This defaults the version to `0.0.0` for most of cargo.
It is an error to lack a version and have a package publishable.
That means you have to add `publish = false`.
Add support for rustc --check-cfg well known names and values
This pull-request add support for `rustc` `--check-cfg` well known names and values.
### What does this PR try to resolve?
This pull-request add support for `rustc` `--check-cfg` well known names and values:
- `-Z check-cfg-well-known-names`: `--check-cfg names()` well known names
- `-Z check-cfg-well-known-values`: `--check-cfg values()` well known values
### How should we test and review this PR?
#### Testing
`cargo check -Z check-cfg-well-known-names` and
`cargo check -Z check-cfg-well-known-values`
#### Review
This PR contains one commit that split `features_args` into `check_cfg_args`, add the well known support in it, adds call to that new function and add documentation and test for those new flags.
### Additional information
This was implemented as two new additional flags because it's most likely that these flags will not be stabilize at the same time and also because some of these flags may become the default.
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3013
`-Z check-cfg-features`: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/10408
`cargo doc` support: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/10428
