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

feat(snap)!: expect_file! macro instead of _path-variants of asserts #247

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Feb 14, 2024

Conversation

epage
Copy link
Contributor

@epage epage commented Feb 14, 2024

This is prep for expect!["text"]

This can take advantage of rust-lang/cargo#3946 on nightly and can help us vet the feature for stabilization.

crates/snapbox/src/data.rs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed
crates/snapbox/src/data.rs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed
@epage epage merged commit 40d7985 into assert-rs:main Feb 14, 2024
12 of 13 checks passed
@epage epage deleted the rust-snap branch February 14, 2024 03:35
epage added a commit to epage/cargo that referenced this pull request Mar 26, 2024
This provides what cargo sets as the `current_dir` for the `rustc`
process.
While `std::file!` is unspecified in what it is relative to,
it is relatively safe, it is generally relative to `rustc`s
`current_dir`.

This can be useful for snapshot testing.
For example, `snapbox` has been using this macro on nightly since
assert-rs/snapbox#247, falling back to finding a parent of
`CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`, if present.
This has been in use in Cargo since rust-lang#13441.

This was added in rust-lang#12996.
Relevant points discussed in that issue:
- This diverged from the original proposal from the Cargo team of having
  a `CARGO_WORKSPACE_DIR` that is the "workspace" of the package being
  built (ie registry packages would map to `CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`).
  In looking at the `std::file!` use case, `CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`, no
  matter how we defined it, would only sort of work because no sane
  definition of that maps to `rustc`'s `current_dir`.a
  This instead focuses on the mechanism currently being used.
- Using "current dir" in the name is meant to be consistent with
  `std::env::current_dir`.
- I can go either way on `CARGO_RUSTC` vs `RUSTC`.  Existing related
  variables:
  - `RUSTC`
  - `RUSTC_WRAPPER`
  - `RUSTC_WORKSPACE_WRAPPER`
  - `RUSTFLAGS` (no `C`)
  - `CARGO_CACHE_RUSTC_INFO`

Note that rust-lang#3946 was overly broad and covered many use cases.
One of those was for packages to look up information on their
dependents.
Issue rust-lang#13484 is being left open to track that.

Fixes rust-lang#3946
epage added a commit to epage/cargo that referenced this pull request May 21, 2024
This provides what cargo sets as the `current_dir` for the `rustc`
process.
While `std::file!` is unspecified in what it is relative to,
it is relatively safe, it is generally relative to `rustc`s
`current_dir`.

This can be useful for snapshot testing.
For example, `snapbox` has been using this macro on nightly since
assert-rs/snapbox#247, falling back to finding a parent of
`CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`, if present.
This has been in use in Cargo since rust-lang#13441.

This was added in rust-lang#12996.
Relevant points discussed in that issue:
- This diverged from the original proposal from the Cargo team of having
  a `CARGO_WORKSPACE_DIR` that is the "workspace" of the package being
  built (ie registry packages would map to `CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`).
  In looking at the `std::file!` use case, `CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR`, no
  matter how we defined it, would only sort of work because no sane
  definition of that maps to `rustc`'s `current_dir`.a
  This instead focuses on the mechanism currently being used.
- Using "current dir" in the name is meant to be consistent with
  `std::env::current_dir`.
- I can go either way on `CARGO_RUSTC` vs `RUSTC`.  Existing related
  variables:
  - `RUSTC`
  - `RUSTC_WRAPPER`
  - `RUSTC_WORKSPACE_WRAPPER`
  - `RUSTFLAGS` (no `C`)
  - `CARGO_CACHE_RUSTC_INFO`

Note that rust-lang#3946 was overly broad and covered many use cases.
One of those was for packages to look up information on their
dependents.
Issue rust-lang#13484 is being left open to track that.

Fixes rust-lang#3946
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant