Commit graph

8 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Jonas Schievink
0e6922f8a8 Implicitly depend on test 2021-09-28 21:39:41 +02:00
Jonas Schievink
0b76b29512 support non-extern-prelude dependencies 2021-09-28 21:23:46 +02:00
Lukas Wirth
3987bf5d6f Simplify 2021-09-19 19:00:06 +02:00
Vincent Esche
74880a10ae Extend CargoConfig.unset_test_crates to allow for efficiently disabling #[cfg(test)] on all crates without having to first load the crate graph 2021-08-26 13:10:14 +02:00
Aleksey Kladov
881d71a489 internal: reduce crate interdependence
I don't think there's anything wrong with project_model depending on
proc_macro_api directly -- fundamentally, both are about gluing our pure
data model to the messy outside world.

However, it's easy enough to avoid the dependency, so why not.

As an additional consideration, `proc_macro_api` now pulls in `base_db`.
project_model should definitely not depend on that!
2021-08-22 13:32:00 +03:00
Aleksey Kladov
4924c24d91 fix: resolve core::arch module
See https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-analyzer-unable-to-resolve-target-specific-module/63797/4?u=matklad

The fix is to put all sysroot crates into the same source root
2021-08-20 17:01:27 +03:00
Toby Fleming
d0b98060d4
Rust project project model smoke tests 2021-08-01 15:00:34 -07:00
Aleksey Kladov
b0c4b776b5 internal: add simple smoke test for project model
Our project model code is rather complicated -- the logic for lowering
from `cargo metadata` to `CrateGraph` is fiddly and special-case. So
far, we survived without testing this at all, but this increasingly
seems like a poor option.

So this PR introduces a simple tests just to detect the most obvious
failures. The idea here is that, although we rely on external processes
(cargo & rustc), we are actually using their stable interfaces, so we
might just mock out the outputs.

Long term, I would like to try to virtualize IO here, so as to do such
mocking in a more principled way, but lets start simple.

Should we forgo the mocking and just call `cargo metadata` directly
perhaps? Touch question -- I personally feel that fast, in-process tests
are more important in this case than any extra assurance we get from
running the real thing.

Super-long term, we would probably want to extend our heavy tests to
cover more use-cases, but we should figure a way to do that without
slowing the tests down for everyone.

Perhaps we need two-tiered bors system, where we pull from `master` into
`release` branch only when an additional set of tests passes?
2021-07-20 16:23:57 +03:00