Use --keep-going cargo flag when building build scripts
#12984
Conversation
|
|
||
| match toolchain { | ||
| Some(v) if v >= &RUST_1_62 => { | ||
| cmd.args(&["-Z", "unstable-options", "--keep-going"]).env("RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP", "1"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should use RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP. If you really need to prefer __CARGO_TEST_CHANNEL_OVERRIDE_DO_NOT_USE_THIS=nightly I think to only enable nightly features for cargo and not for rustc. Version detection build scripts might get confused by RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP. In addition this will need to check if --keep-going still exists and isn't for example removed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We already use RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP for a few different unstable cargo features we'd like to use. What would be the alternative, we can't rely on people running nightly toolchains so +nightly isn't an option. So same problems arise there already.
Though for the other cases we fallback to not using the unstable feature if it fails. I don't think we can easily do that here though since this command can fail for other reasons than the flag not existing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In those cases we gracefully degrade if it fails with RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP. In this case it would completely break a core feature if --keep-going doesn't work anymore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ye, that is indeed a good point. Is there a simple way to detect if the command fails because of the flag not working? Retrying the non bootstrap command if hte bootstrap one fails sounds bad, given it can fail due to the buildscripts not working properly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It gives an error like
error: Found argument '--foo' which wasn't expected, or isn't valid in this context
If you tried to supply `--foo` as a value rather than a flag, use `-- --foo`
USAGE:
cargo check [OPTIONS]
For more information try --help
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess searching the error message is the best we can do here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we could just rerun once with --keep-going if the build fails? 🤔 Presumably it'd pick up where the previous build left off, and if the flag doesn't exist we'd be no worse off...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we could just rerun once with
--keep-goingif the build fails?
Wow, indeed!
|
@bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
See #12973 (comment)