Add gix-diff WASM check, even though gix-path covers it
#75
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As noted in GitoxideLabs#2092, the `wasm` jobs on CI do not test `gix-diff` directly. However, my prediction there that breakage would not be detected on CI is likely mistaken, because those jobs do test the `wasm` feature of `gix-pack`. The `gix-pack` crate depends on `gix-diff`, and its `wasm` feature enable the `gix-diff` one. This temporary change checks that CI does fail when the `wasm` feature of `gix-diff` is broken in a simple way, even though it does not currently run WASM tests of `gix-diff` directly. This also temporarily makes the `wasm` matrix non-fail-fast, so that more failures can be observed.
This adds an explicit check of `gix-diff` in the WASM jobs, even though the `gix-path` check currently covers `gix-diff` (its `wasm` feature enables the `wasm` feature of its `gix-diff` dependency).
This reverts commit 29bc973, which temporarily broke the `wasm` feature of `gix-diff` to check CI.
But continue building default features of `gix-pack`.
EliahKagan
changed the title
wasm feature of gix-diff to check CIgix-diff WASM check, even though gix-path covers it
|
Wrapped message text for squash commit: As noted in #2092, the `wasm` jobs on CI do not test `gix-diff`
directly. However, my prediction there that breakage would not be
detected on CI was mistaken, because those jobs do test the `wasm`
feature of `gix-pack`. The `gix-pack` crate depends on `gix-diff`,
and its `wasm` feature enable the `gix-diff` one.
This nonetheless adds an explicit check for `gix-diff`. This
`gix-diff` check does not attempt to build default features, since
some fail on some WASM targets. But the preexisting `gix-pack`
check does still build the default features of `gix-pack`, which
are compatible with WASM targets.
The efficacy of these checks, as well as the need to pass
`--no-default-features` for `gix-diff`, can be confirmed by
examining CI results for various fragments of this change
experimented on in EliahKagan#75. This also demonstrates that CI is
capable of catching at least some breakages related to the `wasm`
feature of `gix-diff`, and thus may be sufficient to support moving
forward with #2092. |
EliahKagan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2025
As noted in GitoxideLabs#2092, the `wasm` jobs on CI do not test `gix-diff` directly. However, my prediction there that breakage would not be detected on CI was mistaken, because those jobs do test the `wasm` feature of `gix-pack`. The `gix-pack` crate depends on `gix-diff`, and its `wasm` feature enable the `gix-diff` one. This nonetheless adds an explicit check for `gix-diff`. This `gix-diff` check does not attempt to build default features, since some fail on some WASM targets. But the preexisting `gix-pack` check does still build the default features of `gix-pack`, which are compatible with WASM targets. The efficacy of these checks, as well as the need to pass `--no-default-features` for `gix-diff`, can be confirmed by examining CI results for various fragments of this change experimented on in #75. This also demonstrates that CI is capable of catching at least some breakages related to the `wasm` feature of `gix-diff`, and thus may be sufficient to support moving forward with GitoxideLabs#2092.
EliahKagan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2025
As noted in GitoxideLabs#2092, the `wasm` jobs on CI do not test `gix-diff` directly. However, my prediction there that breakage would not be detected on CI was mistaken, because those jobs do test the `wasm` feature of `gix-pack`. The `gix-pack` crate depends on `gix-diff`, and its `wasm` feature enable the `gix-diff` one. This nonetheless adds an explicit check for `gix-diff`. This `gix-diff` check does not attempt to build default features, since some fail on some WASM targets. But the preexisting `gix-pack` check does still build the default features of `gix-pack`, which are compatible with WASM targets. The efficacy of these checks, as well as the need to pass `--no-default-features` for `gix-diff`, can be confirmed by examining CI results for various fragments of this change experimented on in #75. This also demonstrates that CI is capable of catching at least some breakages related to the `wasm` feature of `gix-diff`, and thus may be sufficient to support moving forward with GitoxideLabs#2092.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The purpose of this fork-internal PR is to facilitate a squash while being able to link to details of a testing methodology and associated CI results, where including the individual steps as separate commits (or even describing each of them individually in the commit message) are nonetheless not really justified.
This relates to GitoxideLabs#2093 shall be merged as a squash commit into a feature branch, either for that PR or a successor PR.
As noted in GitoxideLabs#2092, the
wasmjobs on CI do not testgix-diffdirectly. However, my prediction there that breakage would not be detected on CI was mistaken, because those jobs do test thewasmfeature ofgix-pack. Thegix-packcrate depends ongix-diff, and itswasmfeature enable thegix-diffone.This nonetheless adds an explicit check for
gix-diff. Thisgix-diffcheck does not attempt to build default features, since some fail on some WASM targets. But the preexistinggix-packcheck does still build the default features ofgix-pack, which are compatible with WASM targets.The efficacy of these checks, as well as the need to pass
--no-default-featuresforgix-diff, can be confirmed by examining CI results for various fragments of this change experimented on in #75. This also demonstrates that CI is capable of catching at least some breakages related to thewasmfeature ofgix-diff, and thus may be sufficient to support moving forward with GitoxideLabs#2092.