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

Rust 2024 and 1.85 #19236

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 26, 2025
@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

I hope this is more reviewable than the last one! I understand that this will not be merged until #18964 is landed. Please just block this until then. I will fix the merge conflicts afterward. :)

@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

This test fails for me, and I don't know why:

test tests::smoke_test_real_sysroot_cargo ... FAILED

failures:

---- tests::smoke_test_real_sysroot_cargo stdout ----

thread 'tests::smoke_test_real_sysroot_cargo' panicked at crates/base-db/src/input.rs:527:74:
no entry found for key

@ChayimFriedman2
Copy link
Contributor

It's not you. #19214.

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Feb 27, 2025

Gonna repeat myself just to be safe but this will have to land after #18964

Edit: Ah I see you raised that in a comment already, sorry :)

@BenjaminBrienen BenjaminBrienen force-pushed the rust-2024-and-1.85 branch 6 times, most recently from 3ced36d to 8379efd Compare March 4, 2025 21:31
@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

git rebase had a bad time with the imports, so I fixed it up in the last commit

@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

The CI error baffles me. Is that a bug in the action?

@lnicola
Copy link
Member

lnicola commented Mar 5, 2025

The new rustup that just came out has some breaking changes, but I don't see anything that would affect this. However, at:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/actions/runs/13663331790/workflow?pr=19236#L70-L71

Can you try rustup +nightly component add rustfmt? If it works, we could also try to merge it into the command above as rustup toolchain install nightly --profile minimal --components rustfmt.

@lnicola
Copy link
Member

lnicola commented Mar 5, 2025

I went down the second route in #19286.

@BenjaminBrienen BenjaminBrienen force-pushed the rust-2024-and-1.85 branch 3 times, most recently from d9eaff3 to de6214d Compare March 9, 2025 20:54
@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

BenjaminBrienen commented Mar 9, 2025

@lnicola this PR is not about updating to rust 1.87, so what should I do about the CI failure? Why is CI for PRs using rust nightly anyway?

@ChayimFriedman2
Copy link
Contributor

CI uses nightly when the proc macro server is touched, because it must build on nightly. You can #[allow(unused_unsafe)] for now.

@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

BenjaminBrienen commented Mar 10, 2025

If I do that, then we will miss that lint when it becomes relevant in stable. Is there a way to only expect a lint if compiling if the nightly toolchain is being used? I want this lint to trigger when the function is no longer unsafe in stable.

I think we should add an internal feature called nightly which allows us to expect lint, but only on nightly by using #[cfg_attr(nightly, ...)]. This issue will come up whenever there is a new lint in nightly that affects r-a, so a robust solution is needed.

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Mar 10, 2025

We should probably have CI have a separate job for the proc-macro server instead. There is little reason for us to run the entire codebase on nightly

@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nice, thanks. I'll let you handle that.

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Mar 10, 2025

Put up #19328

@BenjaminBrienen BenjaminBrienen force-pushed the rust-2024-and-1.85 branch 3 times, most recently from e96f30a to bab39b4 Compare March 10, 2025 11:54
@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Put up #19328

That did the trick. Thanks!

@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should be unblocked now

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Mar 10, 2025

Ah those failures are because the salsa pr didn't trigger the proc macro test suite, we should add the span crate to the condition.

Either wya those test outputs need to be updated

@BenjaminBrienen
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should I do anything?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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.

5 participants