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

Support for descriptions on third-party subcommands in cargo --list #10663

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

dtolnay
Copy link
Member

@dtolnay dtolnay commented May 12, 2022

What does this PR try to resolve?

This PR implements my proposal in #10662 to enable cargo --list to show descriptions of third-party subcommands, not only the subcommands which are built into Cargo.

How should we test and review this PR?

I have included an ELF note containing a description in the most recent version of the cargo-expand crate. You can confirm that cargo --list is able to print a description for that subcommand (on Linux only, to begin with).

$ cargo install cargo-expand --force
$ gh pr checkout 10663
$ cargo run -- --list

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @ehuss

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@dtolnay dtolnay marked this pull request as ready for review May 12, 2022 18:12
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 1, 2022

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #10804) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@dtolnay
Copy link
Member Author

dtolnay commented Jul 2, 2022

Comment on lines +49 to +50
macro_rules! description {
($description:expr) => {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note to self: maybe cargo_subcommand_metadata::description!(); with no string argument could embed env!(CARGO_PKG_DESCRIPTION) by default.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 1, 2022

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #11029) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@dtolnay
Copy link
Member Author

dtolnay commented Sep 2, 2022

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 29, 2022

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #11159) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@dtolnay
Copy link
Member Author

dtolnay commented Oct 2, 2022

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 14, 2022

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #11369) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@dtolnay
Copy link
Member Author

dtolnay commented Nov 16, 2022

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 7, 2023

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #11807) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor

ehuss commented May 18, 2023

I'm sorry for not responding sooner. I'm going to close since nobody on the team has the capacity to help with this at this time. I've followed up on #10662 with some thoughts we had on the design. I think there might be some more discussion needed on the design, but I don't think any of us can follow up with it right now. Hopefully at some time in the future we can engage with this idea more.

@ehuss ehuss closed this May 18, 2023
@dtolnay dtolnay deleted the desc branch May 18, 2023 07:17
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