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

ci: Bump rust toolchain to 1.83 #39

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ColinKinloch
Copy link
Contributor

@ColinKinloch ColinKinloch commented Jan 21, 2025

Matching Debian testing

Update rust toolchain action to avoid dependabot updates

This MR also contains clippys suggestions:

  • Unused lifetime specifiers
  • Redundant lifetime specifiers
  • unnecessary_map_or replaced with is_some_and
  • Tagged size field of FileEntry as unused

Clippy is also printing:
warning: the following packages contain code that will be rejected by a future version of Rust: buf_redux v0.8.4, multipart v0.18.0, nom v5.1.2, quick-xml v0.22.0, traitobject v0.1.0, typemap v0.3.3

quick-xml is a dependency of https://github.com/collabora/open-build-service-rs which I notice doesn't have dependabot enabled.

@@ -16,16 +16,19 @@ jobs:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
- uses: dtolnay/[email protected]
- uses: dtolnay/rust-toolchain@master # avoid the tag here to prevent dependabot from updating it
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this might be a bad idea if the base action has a breaking change across major versions (which it's allowed to do).

in the year 2024 it would probably be worth just switching to actions-rust-lang/setup-rust-toolchain which actually has a normal versioning scheme (i.e. it doesn't bump the major version of every rust update).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@refi64 do you have comparison between both actions apart from your matter-of-fact type statement? I'm not familiar with actions-rust-lang so i'm not sure what switching brings us? It does seem less popular, but that's not necessarily a good indication.

fwiw dtolnay/rust-toolchain@master pattern is specifically documented by that action. And i'm not a fan of a single crate doing a different action then all the others :p (ofcourse if there is a real rationale, we can swtich them all)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants