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

Add proc-macro to index, and new feature resolver. #8003

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 18, 2020

Conversation

ehuss
Copy link
Contributor

@ehuss ehuss commented Mar 15, 2020

This adds the "pm" field to the index so that Cargo can detect which packages contain a proc-macro without downloading the package.

The second commit builds on that to support proc-macros in the new "de-unification" of the new feature resolver. This prevents dependencies shared between proc-macros and other dependency kinds from having features unified.

cc #7915

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @alexcrichton

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Mar 15, 2020
@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehuss commented Mar 15, 2020

NOTE: This modifies cargo publish without a feature gate. I can add one, but I figure this could be generally useful independent of the new resolver. crates.io will ignore the field for now. The patch to crates.io is relatively trivial.

Copy link
Member

@alexcrichton alexcrichton left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me, thanks @ehuss! I'm tempted to go ahead and merge this since crates.io will ignore other fields we send it. In that sense it'll take awhile for this to fully come to fruition, but do you see a reason to not merge this now?

@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehuss commented Mar 18, 2020

I think it should be OK. I'm not super confident this is the right decision, but I just can't get around the potential difficulty, risk and complexity of trying to rebuild features while packages are downloaded. The main drawback here is the slow rollout since proc-macros will need to be published with a new version to get the new behavior (and that may not be obvious to the proc-macro author, since it is the proc-macro users who care about this).

I just realized I forgot to update the registry documentation, so I just pushed a fix for that.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+

Ok I think in that case let's go ahead and try to get this in the works, and we can adapt the roll-out as time progresses.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 18, 2020

📌 Commit 1c28d89 has been approved by alexcrichton

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 18, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 18, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 1c28d89 with merge 92d0ce8...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 18, 2020

☀️ Test successful - checks-azure
Approved by: alexcrichton
Pushing 92d0ce8 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 92d0ce8 into rust-lang:master Mar 18, 2020
@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehuss commented Mar 18, 2020

@alexcrichton I wanted to discuss a concern I had about this.

If a proc-macro is published with an older Cargo where the pm field is not in the index. Then, some time in the future, they publish with a new Cargo that updates the pm field. This means when they publish, it may cause feature resolution to change for anyone using that proc-macro with the new resolver. That may be surprising, especially if the proc-macro author doesn't know about or use the new feature resolver. There's a bit of "spooky action" going on.

Do you think that is enough of a concern that this is maybe a bad idea to move forward with?

I was initially thinking of just "update all proc-macros in the index" to avoid that, but then I was thinking, after doing that, old Cargo's would keep putting old data into the index. So maybe that isn't such a good solution.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Hm no that's actually a really good point and I would indeed be worried about that.

I do think though that a "rewrite the index" strategy would still work. The main gotcha there though would be that we'd have to update crates.io to work whenever Cargo doesn't send a proc-macro field. crates.io itself would have to parse Cargo.toml, for example, looking for proc-macro = true (or something like that).

I agree though that if we can't fix this we should probably back this out to prevent the action-at-a-distance from happening.

@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor Author

ehuss commented Mar 19, 2020

Yea, I thought about the option of having crates.io parse Cargo.toml. I was hoping it already did that, but it doesn't. I'm not sure how difficult or expensive that would be. I know that the crates.io team would prefer to have the actual .crate upload go through a separate channel (to deal with the heroku 30-second upload timeout), and needing to parse the crate might make that more difficult.

I'll ponder this a bit. I think the only other option is to have Cargo do feature resolution after downloading, and that would require some significant changes to how the code is structured that I would prefer to avoid. I could maybe hack together some prototypes to see how difficult it would be. Another thought I had was to have a simple pre-pass that would determine the minimum set of crates to download, and then build the unit graph. If that could be done in a relatively small amount of code, that might be another option.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

I do agree that the ideal would be doing feature resolution after all the downloads so we have full manifest information, but I thought that you tried that earlier and said it would be an extremely large undertaking. That being said I think it's fine to download extra crates even if we don't end up using them in a few corner cases.

@sfackler
Copy link
Member

Another option to avoid the action-at-a-distance concern is to have the proc-macro authors opt into the new behavior - maybe by setting [package] proc-macro = 2 or something like that. Then you still get the advantage of having the information in the index without a magic change whenever a crate is next released.

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2020
Re-implement proc-macro feature decoupling.

This is essentially a rewrite of #8003. Instead of adding proc-macro to the index, it uses a strategy of downloading all packages before doing feature resolution. Then the package can be inspected for the proc-macro field.

This is a fairly major change. A brief overview:
- `PackageSet` now has a `download_accessible` method which tries to download a minimal set of every accessible package. This isn't very smart right now, and errs on downloading too much. In most cases it should be the same (or nearly the same) as before. It downloads extra in the following cases:
    - The check for `[target]` dependencies checks both host and target for every dependency. I could tighten that up a little so build dependencies only check for the host, but it would add some complexity and I wanted to get feedback first.
    - Optional dependencies disabled by the new feature resolver will get downloaded.
- Removed the loop in computing unit dependencies where downloading used to reside.
- When downloading starts, it should now show a more accurate count of how many crates are to be downloaded. Previously the count would fluctuate while the graph is being built.
Dylan-DPC-zz pushed a commit to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 25, 2020
Update cargo.

8 commits in 7019b3ed3d539db7429d10a343b69be8c426b576..8a0d4d9c9abc74fd670353094387d62028b40ae9
2020-03-17 21:02:00 +0000 to 2020-03-24 17:57:04 +0000
- Re-implement proc-macro feature decoupling. (rust-lang/cargo#8028)
- Remove unused transitive dependencies: miniz_oxide, adler32 (rust-lang/cargo#8023)
- Fix bug with -Zfeatures=dev_dep and `check --profile=test`. (rust-lang/cargo#8027)
- Remove Config from CompileOptions. (rust-lang/cargo#8021)
- Add `rustless.org` to documented blocklist. (rust-lang/cargo#7922)
- Print colored warnings when build script panics (rust-lang/cargo#8017)
- Do not supply --crate-version flag to rustdoc if present in RUSTDOCFLAGS (rust-lang/cargo#8014)
- Add proc-macro to index, and new feature resolver. (rust-lang/cargo#8003)
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 26, 2020
Update cargo.

8 commits in 7019b3ed3d539db7429d10a343b69be8c426b576..8a0d4d9c9abc74fd670353094387d62028b40ae9
2020-03-17 21:02:00 +0000 to 2020-03-24 17:57:04 +0000
- Re-implement proc-macro feature decoupling. (rust-lang/cargo#8028)
- Remove unused transitive dependencies: miniz_oxide, adler32 (rust-lang/cargo#8023)
- Fix bug with -Zfeatures=dev_dep and `check --profile=test`. (rust-lang/cargo#8027)
- Remove Config from CompileOptions. (rust-lang/cargo#8021)
- Add `rustless.org` to documented blocklist. (rust-lang/cargo#7922)
- Print colored warnings when build script panics (rust-lang/cargo#8017)
- Do not supply --crate-version flag to rustdoc if present in RUSTDOCFLAGS (rust-lang/cargo#8014)
- Add proc-macro to index, and new feature resolver. (rust-lang/cargo#8003)
@ehuss ehuss added this to the 1.44.0 milestone Feb 6, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants