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

Add support for showing Travis and Appveyor current build status badges #504

merged 1 commit into from Jan 17, 2017


Copy link

@carols10cents carols10cents commented Jan 16, 2017

This goes with corresponding PR rust-lang/cargo#3546. It probably makes the most sense for this one to go in first.

If a maintainer is testing their project on Travis and Appveyor and so chooses, they can specify attributes for badges for the crate's current build status in its Cargo.toml.

The badges will then get displayed in alphabetical order on both pages that list crates:

preview of badges shown in a list of crates, next to the version badge

and an individual crate's page:

preview of badges shown on an individual crate's page, in the sidebar

If any badges other than appveyor or travis are specified, will ignore them and send back a warning for cargo to display. If the "repository" attribute for either badge is missing, will ignore that badge and warn about it. If any attributes other than the ones knows about for each badge is specified, those will get ignored and not warned about.

Copy link

alexcrichton commented Jan 17, 2017

Looks great to me, thanks @carols10cents!

@alexcrichton alexcrichton merged commit 0288ef9 into rust-lang:master Jan 17, 2017
1 check passed
@carols10cents carols10cents deleted the ci-badge branch Jan 17, 2017
bors added a commit to rust-lang/cargo that referenced this issue Jan 17, 2017
Upload Travis CI and Appveyor badge metadata specified in the manifest

This goes with rust-lang/ This has cargo upload badge metadata to on publish, and will print any warnings it gets back from about unknown badges or missing required badge attributes!

This will definitely cause some merge conflicts with #3301, I'll watch and fix whichever one gets merged 2nd :)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
None yet

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants