snapbox VS rust

If needed, here is an example of per-word diffing and highlighting of trailing newline differences.

I see. I would try writing the same name as in your Cargo.toml. For example, if yours was toml [package] name = "caesor_cipher" I would try bin.name = "caesor_cipher" It seems that trycmd might ignore a test if the bin.name field is incorrect: https://github.com/assert-rs/trycmd/issues/105

I find rustdoc lacking for clap. rustdoc does a good job with API reference documentation and is improving in its handling of examples but derive reference and tutorial documentation are a weak point.

For examples, its improving with the example scraping work (e.g. https://docs.rs/clap/latest/clap/struct.ArgMatches.html#meth...) but testing of example is still lacking. I've written trycmd to help (https://github.com/assert-rs/trycmd).

For derive reference and tutorial documentation, your choices are

- A very long, hard to navigate top-level documentation, see https://docs.rs/structopt/latest/structopt/

- External documentation, see https://serde.rs/

- Dummy modules to store your documentation (I've seen this used but can't remember one off the top of my head)

For clap, my documentation examples are best served as programs and we've had a problem with these being broken. The Rust CLI book has a decent strategy for this by pulling in code from external files (https://rust-cli.github.io/book/index.html). I was tempted to do that for clap where example code and output (all verified via trycmd) are pulled into an mdbook site but I've stopped short and just have a README that links out to everything (https://github.com/clap-rs/clap/blob/master/examples/tutoria...). Its not great.

Another problem we found in clap was it was easy for our examples to build but harder to make sure they worked. This is why I wrote trycmd (example "tests").

Would love feedback on on some of the known questions or whatever else is on your mind!

The design is inspired by trybuild with thought given to how mdBook books could pull in content so you can verify a code sample, the command for running it, and the output. In considering how to keep clap's website up-to-date, I had this idea and threw it together to see how well it works. Overall, seems good with room for improvement. I'll have to give this a try on a real world program soon.

> There are online Rust compilers and interpreters already if you just want to rapid prototype and develop ideas in Rust

You are responding to one of the key developers of Rust early on[1], who's been working with the language for 14 years at that point.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/graphs/contributors?from=2... and he's still #16 in commits overall today, despite almost no activity on the rust compiler since 2014.

If you haven't dipped your touch-typing fingers into Rust yet, you really owe it to yourself. Rust is a modern programming language with features that make it suitable not only for systems programming -- its original purpose, but just about any other environment, too; there are frameworks that let your build web services, web applications including user interfaces, software for embedded devices, machine learning solutions, and of course, command-line tools. Since a custom GitHub Action is essentially a command-line tool that interacts with the system through files and environment variables, Rust is perfectly suited for that as well.

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.