editor/code: Update dependencies #15265
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Sorry, slightly odd question that I don't think I've asked you before: do you mind keeping rust-analyzer at 1.78? For work-related reasons, a bunch of folks at my employer are on 1.78 and will be on it for a while longer, and it'll be a second before they're on something higher. It's not trivial to upgrade for reasons that I'm not entirely sure I'm allowed to say. (I feel bad asking this question, but given that I'm not aware of any meaningful extension-related changes that occurred between 1.78–1.80, I don't feel too bad.) |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #15264) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
tetsuharuohzeki
force-pushed
the
update-dependencies
branch
from
96fd4ef
to
085b755
Compare
Ah, Okay, I removed to update about it. |
|
rebased on the lastest |
|
How did you format the code, and can we run it automatically (e.g. to check it on CI)? |
I did it by running And our CI already have the step checking the formatting result by here: rust-analyzer/.github/workflows/ci.yaml Lines 164 to 166 in 6acb989 IMO, it might be nice to split these ci steps into separated jobs to make clarify what we checking. |
|
Oh, right. I think it's good enough, you can see what failed. Maybe we could add a comment along the lines of "try npm run fix if this fails", for people less used to Node and npm. |
|
I'll open it as an another pull request |
|
@bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
editor/code: Break down CI steps to know what is failing easily This do the thing I mentioned in #15265 (comment) This aims to improve CI status check more readable. I tried to use [`jobs.<job_id>.if`](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#jobsjob_idif) to make the configuration more shortly once. But it could not fire the `end-success` or `end-failure` status if some jobs in the workflow were skipped. This causes an integration problem with bors. By their reasons, this patch still uses `jobs.<job_id>.steps[*].if`. --- To do this change, we reorganize npm-script. | previous | after | |--------------------|----------------------------------------| | `npm run lint` | `npm run lint && npm run format:check` | | `npm run fix` | `npm run lint:fix && npm run format` | The previous `npm run fix` sometimes does not complete fix automatically because ESLint's autofix doees not follow prettier's formatting. So we need to run `npm run lint:fix && npm run format` by this order.
…75, r=lnicola vscode: change minimum VS Code version to 1.75 from 1.78 I previously mentioned [in a comment](#15265 (comment)) that folks at my employer are on 1.78, but I was incorrect: people are on 1.75. I know this is outside the standard version support policy, but I haven't seen any of the new features in VS Code be used in rust-analyzer. The most applicable feature in those three versions of VS Code that I can find [is lazily resolving code actions](https://code.visualstudio.com/updates/v1_78#_resolve-code-action-commands-in-resolvecodeaction), but it doesn't seem like rust-analyzer is making use of that feature. (I'll be posting a PR that adds support for `$saved_file` within the next day, so feel free to bump the minimum VS Code version back to 1.78 if/when that PR lands. This just makes vendoring the _actual_ change I'm interested in a little bit easier.)
This includes:
Update@types/vscodeto 1.79.1.80 has been released. We can now bump it.