cargo-semver-checks VS rust

If you'd like to dig deeper, here are some links:

- cargo-semver-checks: https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks

- Trustfall query engine, which powers cargo-semver-checks: https://github.com/obi1kenobi/trustfall

- Trustfall playground, where you can query Rust library APIs in your browser -- for example, "which structs in `itertools` are importable by more than one path": https://play.predr.ag/rustdoc#?f=2&q=*3-Structs-importable-f...

- 10min conference talk on Trustfall: https://www.hytradboi.com/2022/how-to-query-almost-everythin...

I'm also giving a talk at P99 CONF in a few months about how Trustfall's new optimizations API made cargo-semver-checks over 2300x faster: https://twitter.com/PredragGruevski/status/16893002495908003...

I strongly recommend that anybody creating new error types for public APIs read Study of std::io::Error by u/matklad to see some ways that error types can [need to] be future-proofed. I don't know if cargo-semver-checks can catch these issues when they're generated by a macro, but it'd be something people using this crate should carefully look into.

cargo-semver-checks will implement a check for cases like this, and many other hazards like it. The check will be major, or minor, or just a hazard — whatever the overall community decides is right.

Full release notes: https://github.com/obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks/releases/tag/v0.18.0

Release notes, TL;DR: Rust 1.65+ only, no more false positives due to moved+re-exported items.

Here's an example of someone citing a disagreement between CRT and shell32:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44650

This in addition to the Rust CVE mentioned elsewhere in the thread which was rooted in this issue:

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/04/09/cve-2024-24576.html

Here are some quick programs to test contrasting approaches. I don't have examples of inputs where they parse differently on hand right now, but I know they exist. This was also a problem that was frequently discussed internally when I worked at MSFT.

    #include 

> instead of choosing a certain numbered version of the random library (if I remember correctly) I let cargo download the latest version which had a completely different API.

Yeah, they didn't follow the instructions and got burned. I still think that multiple things went wrong simultaneously for that experience. I wonder if more prevalent uses of `#[doc(alias = "name")]` being leveraged by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120730 (which now that I check only accounts for methods and not functions, I should get on that!) so that when changing APIs around people at least get a slightly better experience.

Almost fixed the compiler: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123325

Rust: A secure, efficient, and modern programming language (omitting ten thousand words). You can simply follow the installation instructions provided on the official website.

Recently did something similar in Rust but for generating SVGs. We've adopted it for snapshot testing of cargo and rustc's output. Don't have a good PR handy for showing Github's rendering of changes in the SVG (text, side-by-side, swiping) but https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121877/files has newly added SVGs.

To see what is supported, see the screenshot in the docs: https://docs.rs/anstyle-svg/latest/anstyle_svg/

We strongly believe in Rust as a powerful language for building production-grade software, especially for systems like ours that run alongside Kubernetes.

The above Assert<{N % 2 == 1}> requires #![feature(generic_const_exprs)] and the nightly toolchain. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76560 for more info.