Partially fixes#15656 . When a crate graph is extended which is the case when new workspaces are added to the project
the rules for deduplication were too strict. One problem that arises from this is that in certain conditions
when we see the same crate having different `CrateOrigin`s the first form would be maintained. This approach however
results in some unwanted results such as making renaming forbidden as this has been recently only made available for
local crates. The given example in #15656 can still not be resolved with this PR as that involves taking inconsistencies
between dependencies into consideration. This will be addressed in a future PR.
This makes code more readale and concise,
moving all format arguments like `format!("{}", foo)`
into the more compact `format!("{foo}")` form.
The change was automatically created with, so there are far less change
of an accidental typo.
```
cargo clippy --fix -- -A clippy::all -W clippy::uninlined_format_args
```
We generally avoid "syntax only" helper wrappers, which don't do much:
they make code easier to write, but harder to read. They also make
investigations harder, as "find_usages" needs to be invoked both for the
wrapped and unwrapped APIs
Our project model code is rather complicated -- the logic for lowering
from `cargo metadata` to `CrateGraph` is fiddly and special-case. So
far, we survived without testing this at all, but this increasingly
seems like a poor option.
So this PR introduces a simple tests just to detect the most obvious
failures. The idea here is that, although we rely on external processes
(cargo & rustc), we are actually using their stable interfaces, so we
might just mock out the outputs.
Long term, I would like to try to virtualize IO here, so as to do such
mocking in a more principled way, but lets start simple.
Should we forgo the mocking and just call `cargo metadata` directly
perhaps? Touch question -- I personally feel that fast, in-process tests
are more important in this case than any extra assurance we get from
running the real thing.
Super-long term, we would probably want to extend our heavy tests to
cover more use-cases, but we should figure a way to do that without
slowing the tests down for everyone.
Perhaps we need two-tiered bors system, where we pull from `master` into
`release` branch only when an additional set of tests passes?
The completion of cfg will look at the enabled cfg keys when
performing completion.
It will also look crate features when completing a feature cfg
option. A fixed list of known values for some cfg options are
provided.
For unknown keys it will look at the enabled values for that cfg key,
which means that completion will only show enabled options for those.
