Allow banning or requiring specific features #253
Conversation
|
This will take some more time (~2-4 weeks probably) because school started. |
|
No worries, take your time! |
|
@Stupremee sorry it took a while to look at this, but it looks good, the only thing missing is a few tests for this! |
|
Yes. I will I add them in the next few days |
Jake-Shadle
force-pushed
the
allow-ban-features
branch
from
24f7db4
to
308264c
Compare
|
So I was hoping to get this merged in and added to the next release, but it's looking like a bigger change than I initially thought, so I'm going to just do a release now, promise this will get in soon! |
|
@Jake-Shadle is there still interest in adding this feature? |
|
There is, there were just some bugs/missing parts in this PR and I just haven't had time to come back to it and clean it up unfortunately, but it is definitely something we want. |
|
Hey @Jake-Shadle! This Pull Request is almost two years old, but I'm sure there's still interest for this feature. |
|
So the reason I never merged this was not because the PR itself didn't work, but rather that currently the printing of the reverse crate dependency graphs when showing diagnostics has no notion of features, and it felt like this feature would be incomplete without that addition. But that being said, I think you could update this PR to compile again (or maybe just create a new one from HEAD) to add this feature, and we could get it in and then add the better crate graph reporting separately. Also this might have some interaction with EmbarkStudios/krates#41 but not sure. |
|
Supplanted by #434 |
Resolves #226