fix(update): don't reuse a previously locked dependency if multiple major versions are compatible #14582
Conversation
…ajor versions are compatible
|
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 (
|
rustbot
added
A-dependency-resolution
|
As a heads up, none of these issues are marked as @Eh2406 can better speak to whether we can shortcircuit that and move forward with this. r? @Eh2406 btw another issue with multi-major version reqs is #9029 with #13535 as a proposed change for it. |
|
|
||
| /// Get version preferences. | ||
| fn version_prefs(&self) -> &VersionPreferences; | ||
|
|
||
| /// Set version preferences. | ||
| fn set_version_prefs(&mut self, version_prefs: VersionPreferences); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For myself, I feel uncomfortable how much resolver logic lives in PackageRegistry, I feel even more uncomfortable adding VersionPreferences to it and to trait Registry as well.
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #14569) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
| // to do the full resolving instead of locking a specific version. | ||
| // Otherwise, we query all known locked packages to see if they match this dependency, | ||
| // and if anything does then we lock it to that and move on. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My instinct has long been that this heuristic should just be removed. Apparently I tried that when I was a little baby contributor new to open source in #5718. A lot has changed since then, so it might work now.
Another approach discussed in that PR is to remove this heuristic and double our calls to resolve. We try resolving with --offline and only try normal resolution after the --offline did not work. But now that I say that (I think, without having try it), that would lead to cargo update randomly updating unrelated GIT dependencies. In addition to the performance impacts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After some more investigation, this heuristic seems to be loadbearing for cleaning up different ways to refer to the same git package. For example a dependency might require the default branch (or the master branch) but what's available in the lock file is a particular checkout. This heuristic identifies that the particular hash could match and uses it. This seems accidental to me. I think there must be a better way of handling this. If we had a matches_with_compatible_git_source when iterating over locked_deps things could be solved much more elegantly. In the time I had available I did not find one laying around, but this still seems a promising direction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test checks this heuristic and is not related to git dependencies:
cargo/tests/testsuite/registry.rs
Line 2487 in 43e3fa9
So passing a matches_with_compatible_git_source parameter will not be enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are correct. I forgot to mention that case. That test was added at the same time as the heuristic. Based on the PR that added it was to allow use of cargo with fewer network requests. This was a big issue at the time because we did not yet have --offline. So if cargo decided that you needed a network request and you did not have network access you were stuck. I have not formally discussed it with the team, but my vote would be that we just remove that test.
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (possibly 081d7ba) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
What does this PR try to resolve?
Fixes #5529.
Fixes #14115.
Fixes #14446.
How should we test and review this PR?
This first commit adds a test documenting the current behavior, and the second commit implements the fix and updates the test.
Additional information