Skip to content
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

Log the name of the dependency that changed #13883

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

torhovland
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #13859 by adding the name of the dependency to the "dependency info changed" log message.

There is a surprising test output after this. See code review.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented May 8, 2024

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @epage (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@rustbot rustbot added A-rebuild-detection Area: rebuild detection and fingerprinting S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 8, 2024
@@ -622,7 +622,7 @@ fn dylib() {
[FRESH] registry-shared v0.0.1
[COMPILING] registry v0.0.1
[RUNNING] `rustc --crate-name registry [..]
[DIRTY] bar v0.0.0 ([..]): dependency info changed
[DIRTY] bar v0.0.0 ([..]): dependency info changed (registry_shared)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This message looks strange to me. Should it not output registry rather than registry_shared here?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Part of the problem is we only report the first dependency, rather than all.

I suspect what is happening here is we are reusing registry_shared with a version from a couple builds back. This is a different hash than the immediately prior build, so it requires rebuilding bar but this isn't quite clear without more context.

I wonder if this change will cause more confusion than good and we should defer to #2904 which would add a cargo report subcommand for reporting why the last command rebuilt and we can include a lot more context.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See #13859 (comment), yet it might need some design discussions before proceed.

@weihanglo
Copy link
Member

Going to close this as it needs more designs before making a PR. Thank you for being interested in this.

@weihanglo weihanglo closed this May 31, 2024
@torhovland
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fair enough, but the issue should probably not be S-accepted, then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-rebuild-detection Area: rebuild detection and fingerprinting S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Show more details on "Dirty ...: dependency info changed"
4 participants