tidy: remove filtering for wasm32 deps, as this don't work

[klensy]

This was added in #106470, from that time something changed and now it don't work as expected.

[rustbot]

r? @ozkanonur

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[klensy]

I don't know why, but one of suspects is https://docs.rs/cargo-platform/0.1.2/cargo_platform/enum.Platform.html#method.matches

It says "Returns whether the Platform matches the given target and cfg.", but what means "matches"?

Lets skip target part and look at cfg.

There can be 2 situations:

1. cfg(not(windows)) matches cfg(target_arch="wasm32") (matches currently): which can be understand as: if X can be Y? But cfg(not(windows)) for example can be x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu which actually not matches cfg(target_arch="wasm32").
2. If X has cfgs which is Y? cfg(all(target_arch="wasm32",target_os="unknown")) matches cfg(target_arch="wasm32") because target_arch is "wasm32".

But 2. can be broken again if cfg(any(target_arch="wasm32", target_arch="x86_64")) matched against cfg(target_arch="wasm32"), as it can be x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu again, which is not cfg(target_arch="wasm32").

[klensy]

Okay, looks like this don't work as i expected:
Name("wasm32-wasi").matches("", &[Cfg::from_str("target_arch=\"wasm32\"").unwrap(),]) == false, while should return true (ignore part that Platform::matches checks target or cfg).
cargo_platform works on strings and don't know to parse triples or if one cfg turn on other cfgs (for example target_env="msvc" should enable target_os="windows").

[klensy]

Comments are messy (for me too, in month later), so, please ask question questions.

[onur-ozkan]

We should try to make this work instead of getting rid of it entirely. If we really want to remove it, we can revert the changes that were made, but I don't believe this is the best solution for this situation.

[Dylan-DPC]

@klensy i assume this is ready for review? can you mark it as ready for review {which will no longer keep it as a draft}

[klensy]

@klensy i assume this is ready for review? can you mark it as ready for review {which will no longer keep it as a draft}

While technically it's ready, i'm tried to get some discussion how cargo-platoform should work (in this case).

[onur-ozkan]

While technically it's ready, i'm tried to get some discussion how cargo-platoform should work (in this case).

I ignore the PR completely since it appears to be in draft. Will review it in couple of days.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #116508) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[Dylan-DPC]

@klensy does this still need to be a draft? looks like it is waiting for review which generally means the pr is ready for review :P

[onur-ozkan]

@klensy does this still need to be a draft? looks like it is waiting for review which generally means the pr is ready for review :P

I left a review note at #113449 (comment)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #117372) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[onur-ozkan]

@rustbot author (due to #113449 (comment) and conflicts)

[klensy]

will be removed in #123788