Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add named path bases to cargo (v2) #3529

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Aug 5, 2024
395 changes: 395 additions & 0 deletions text/3529-cargo-path-bases.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
- Feature Name: `path_bases`
- Start Date: 2023-11-13
- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#3529](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3529)
- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000)

# Summary
[summary]: #summary

Introduce shared base directories in Cargo configuration files that in
turn enable base-relative `path` dependencies.
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

# Motivation
[motivation]: #motivation

As a project grows in size, it becomes necessary to split it into smaller
sub-projects, architected into layers with well-defined boundaries.

One way to enforce these boundaries is to use different Git repos (aka
"multi-repo"). Cargo has good support for multi-repo projects using either `git`
dependencies, or developers can use private registries if they want to
explicitly publish code or need to preprocess their sub-projects (e.g.,
generating code) before they can be consumed.

If all of the code is kept in a single Git repo (aka "mono-repo"), then these
boundaries must be enforced a different way: either leveraging tooling during
the build to check layering, or requiring that sub-projects explicitly publish
and consume from some intermediate directory. Cargo has poor support for
mono-repos: the only viable mechanism is `path` dependencies, but these require
epage marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
relative paths (which makes refactoring and moving sub-projects very difficult)
and don't work at all if the mono-repo requires publishing and consuming from an
intermediate directory (as this may very per host, or per target being built).

This RFC proposes a mechanism to specify `base` directories in `Config.toml` or
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
`Cargo.toml` files which can be used to prepend `path` dependencies. This allows
mono-repos to specify dependencies relative to their root directory, which
allows the consuming project to be moved freely (no relative paths to update)
and a simple find-and-replace to handle a producing project being moved.
Additionally, a host-specific or target-specific intermediate directory may be
specified as a `base`, allowing code to be consumed from there using `path`
dependencies.

### Example

If we had a sub-project that depends on three others:

* `foo` which is in a different layer of the mono-repo.
* `bar_with_generated` that must be consumed from an intermediate directory
because it contains target-specific generated code.
* `baz` which is in the current layer.

We may have a `Cargo.toml` snippet that looks like this:

```toml
[dependencies]
foo = { path = "../../../other_layer/foo" }
bar_with_generated = { path = "../../../../intermediates/x86_64/Debug/third_layer/bar_with_generated" }
baz = { path = "../baz" }
```

This has many issues:

* Moving the current sub-project may require changing all of these relative
paths.
* `bar_with_generated` will only work if we're building x86_64 Debug.
* `bar_with_generated` assumes that the `intermediates` directory is a sibling
to our source directory, and not somewhere else completely (e.g., a different
drive for performance reasons).
* Moving `foo` or `baz` requires searching the code for each possible relative
path (e.g., `../../../other_layer/foo` and `../foo`) and may be error prone if
there is some other sub-project in directory with the same name.

Instead, if we could specify these `base` directories in a `Config.toml` (which
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
may be generated by an external build system which in turn invokes Cargo):

```toml
[base-paths]
sources = "/home/user/dev/src"
intermediates = "/home/user/dev/intermediates/x86_64/Debug"
```

Then the `Cargo.toml` can use those `base` directories and avoid relative paths:

```toml
[dependencies]
foo = { path = "other_layer/foo", base = "sources" }
bar_with_generated = { path = "third_layer/bar_with_generated", base = "intermediates" }
baz = { path = "this_layer/baz", base = "sources" }
```

Which resolves the issues we previously had:

* The current project can be moved without modifying the `Cargo.toml` at all.
* `bar_with_generated` works for all targets (assuming the `Config.toml` is
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
generated).
* The `intermediates` directory can be placed anywhere.
* Moving `foo` or `baz` only requires searching for the canonical form relative
to the `base` directory.

## Other uses

The ability to use `base` directories for `path` dependencies is convenient for
developers who are using a large number of `path` dependencies within the same
root directory. Instead of repeating the same path fragment many times in their
`Cargo.toml`, they can instead specify it once in a `Config.toml` as a `base`
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
directory, then use that `base` directory in each of their `path` dependencies.

Cargo can also provide built-in base paths, for example `workspace` to point to
the root directory of the workspace. This allows workspace members to reference
each other without first needing to `../` their way back to the workspace root.
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

# Guide-level explanation
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation

If you often use path dependencies that live in a particular location,
or if you want to avoid putting long paths in your `Cargo.toml`, you can
define path _base directories_ in your Cargo [manifest](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html)
or [configuration](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/config.html).
Your path dependencies can then be specified relative to those
directories.

For example, say you have a number of projects checked out in
`/home/user/dev/rust/libraries/`. Rather than use that path in your
`Cargo.toml` files, you can define it as a "base" path in
`~/.cargo/config.toml`:

```toml
[base-paths]
dev = "/home/user/dev/rust/libraries/"
```

Now, you can specify a path dependency on a library `foo` in that
directory in your `Cargo.toml` using

```toml
[dependencies]
foo = { path = "foo", base = "dev" }
```

Like with other path dependencies, keep in mind that both the base _and_
the path must exist on any other host where you want to use the same
`Cargo.toml` to build your project.

dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
# Reference-level explanation
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation

## Specifying Dependencies

### Base Paths

A `path` dependency may optionally specify a base path by setting the `base` key
to the name of a base path from the `[base-paths]` table in either the
[manifest](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html) or
[configuration](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/config.html#base-paths)
or one of the [built-in base paths](#built-in-base-paths). The value of that
base path is prepended to the `path` value to produce the actual location where
Cargo will look for the dependency.

For example, if the Cargo.toml contains:
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

```toml
[dependencies]
foo = { path = "foo", base = "dev" }
```
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

Given a `[base-paths]` table in the configuration that contains:

```toml
[base-paths]
dev = "/home/user/dev/rust/libraries/"
```
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

This will produce a `path` dependency `foo` located at
`/home/user/dev/rust/libraries/foo`.

If the base path is not found in any `[base-paths]` table or one of the built-in
base paths then Cargo will generate an error.

If the name of a base path is specified in both the manifest and configuration,
then the value in the manifest is preferred.
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

The name of a base path must use only [alphanumeric](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.char.html#method.is_alphanumeric)
characters or `-` or `_`, must start with an [alphabetic](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.char.html#method.is_alphabetic)
character, and must not be empty.

#### Built-in base paths

Cargo provides implicit base paths that can be used without the need to specify
them in a `[base-paths]` table.

* `workspace` - If a project is [a workspace or workspace member](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/workspaces.html)
then this base path is defined as the path to the directory containing the root
Cargo.toml of the workspace.

If one of these built-in base paths is also specified in the manifest or
configuration, then that value is preferred over the built-in value. This allows
Cargo to introduce additional built-in paths in the future without compatibility
issues, as any existing uses will shadow Cargo's built-in name.

## The Manifest Format

[`[base-paths]`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/specifying-dependencies.html#base-paths) - Base paths for path dependencies.
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

## Configuration
epage marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

`[base-paths]`
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* Type: string
* Default: see below
* Environment: `CARGO_BASE_PATHS_<name>`

The `[base-paths]` table defines a set of path prefixes that can be used to
prepend the locations of `path` dependencies. See the [specifying dependencies](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/specifying-dependencies.html#base-paths)
documentation for more information.

# Drawbacks
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks

1. There is now an additional way to specify a dependency in
`Cargo.toml` that may not be accessible when others try to build the
same project. Specifically, it may now be that the other host has a
`path` dependency available at the same relative path to `Cargo.toml`
as the author of the `Cargo.toml` entry, but does not have the `base`
defined (or has it defined as some other value).

At the same time, this might make path dependencies _more_ re-usable
across hosts, since developers can dictate only which _bases_ need to
exist, rather than which _paths_ need to exist. This would allow
different developers to host their path dependencies in different
locations from the original author.
2. Developers still need to know the path _within_ each path base. We
could instead define path "aliases", though at that point the whole
thing looks more like a special kind of "local path registry".
3. This introduces yet another mechanism for grouping local
dependencies. We already have [local registries, directory
registries](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/source-replacement.html),
and the [`[paths]`
override](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/overriding-dependencies.html#paths-overrides).
However, those are all intended for immutable local copies of
dependencies where versioning is enforced, rather than as mutable
path dependencies.

# Rationale and alternatives
[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives

This design was primarily chosen for its simplicity — it adds very
little to what we have today both in terms of API surface and mechanism.
But, other approaches exist.

Developers could have their `path` dependencies point to symlinks in the
current directory, which other developers would then be told to set up
to point to the appropriate place on their system. This approach has two
main drawbacks: they are harder to use on Windows as they [require
special privileges](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/security-policy-settings/create-symbolic-links),
and they pollute the user's project directory.

For the build-system case, the build system could place vendored
dependencies directly into the source directory at well-known locations,
though this would mean that if the source of those dependencies were to
change, the user would have to re-run the build system (rather than just
run `cargo`) to refresh the vendored dependency. And this approach too
would end up polluting the user's source directory.

An earlier iteration of the design avoided adding a new field to
dependencies, and instead inlined the base name into the path using
`path = "base::relative/path"`. This has the advantage of not
introducing another special keyword in `Cargo.toml`, but comes at the
cost of making `::` illegal in paths, which was deemed too great.

Alternatively, we could add support for extrapolating environment
variables (or arbitrary configuration values?) in `Cargo.toml` values.
That way, the path could be given as `path =
"${base.name}/relative/path"`. While that works, it's not trivially
backwards compatible, may be confusing when users try to extrapolate
random other configuration variables in their paths, and _seems_ like a
possible Pandora's box of corner-cases.

The [`[paths]`
feature](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/overriding-dependencies.html#paths-overrides)
could be updated to lift its current limitations around adding
dependencies and requiring that the dependencies be available on
crates.io. This would allow users to avoid `path` dependencies in more
cases, but makes the replacement more implicit than explicit. That
change is also more likely to break existing users, and to involve
significant refactoring of the existing mechanism.

We could add another type of local registry that is explicitly declared
in `Cargo.toml`, and from which local dependencies could then be drawn.
Something like:

```toml
[registry.local]
path = "/path/to/path/registry"
```

This would make specifying the dependencies somewhat nicer (`version =
"1", registry = "local"`), and would ensure a standard layout for the
locations of the local dependencies. However, using local dependencies
in this manner would require more set-up to arrange for the right
registry layout, and we would be introducing what is effectively a
mutable registry, which Cargo has avoided thus far.

Even with such an approach, there are benefits to being able to not put
complex paths into `Cargo.toml` as they may differ on other build hosts.
So, a mechanism for indirecting through a path name may still be
desirable.

Ultimately, by not having a mechanism to name paths that lives outside
of `Cargo.toml`, we are forcing developers to coordinate their file
system layouts without giving them a mechanism for doing so. Or to work
around the lack of a mechanism by requiring developers to add symlinks
in strategic locations, cluttering their directories. The proposed
mechanism is simple to understand and to use, and still covers a wide
variety of use-cases.

dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
# Prior art
[prior-art]: #prior-art

Python searches for dependencies by walking `sys.path` in definition
order, which [is pulled
from](https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/modules.html#the-module-search-path)
the current directory, `PYTHONPATH`, and a list of system-wide library
directories. All imports are thus "relative" to every directory in
`sys.path`. This makes it easy to inject local development dependencies
simply by injecting a path early in `sys.path`. The path dependency is
never made explicit anywhere in Python. We _could_ adopt a similar
approach by declaring an environment variable `CARGO_PATHS`, where every
`path` is considered relative to each path in `CARGO_PATHS` until a path
that exists is found. However, this introduces additional possibilities
for user confusion if, say, `foo` exists in multiple paths in
`CARGO_PATHS` and the first one is picked (though maybe that could be a
warning?).

NodeJS (with npm) is very similar to Python, except that dependencies
can also be
[specified](https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_all_together)
using relative paths like Cargo's `path` dependencies. For non-path
dependencies, it searches in [`node_modules/` in every parent
directory](https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_loading_from_node_modules_folders),
as well as in the [`NODE_PATH` search
path](https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_loading_from_the_global_folders).
There does not exist a standard mechanism to specify a path dependency
relative to a path named elsewhere. With CommonJS modules, JavaScript
developers are able to extrapolate variables directly into their
`require` arguments, and can thus implement custom schemes for getting
customizable paths.

Ruby's `Gemfile` [path
dependencies](https://bundler.io/man/gemfile.5.html#PATH) are only ever
absolute paths or paths relative to the `Gemfile`'s location, and so are
similar to Rust's current `path` dependencies.

The same is the case for Go's `go.mod` [replacement
dependencies](https://golang.org/doc/modules/managing-dependencies#tmp_10),
which only allow absolute or relative paths.

From this, it's clear that other major languages do not have a feature
quite like this. This is likely because path dependencies are assumed
to be short-lived and local, and thus having them be host-specific is
often good enough. However, as the motivation section of this RFC
outlines, there are still use-cases where a simple name-indirection
could help.

# Unresolved questions
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions

dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- What should the Cargo configuration table and dependency key be called? This
RFC calls the configuration table `base-paths` to be explicit that it is
dealing with paths (as `base` would be ambiguous) but calls the key `base` to
keep it concise.
- Is there other reasonable behavior we could fall back to if a `base`
is specified for a dependency, but no base by that name exists in the
current Cargo configuration? This RFC suggests that this should be an
error, but perhaps there is a reasonable thing to try _first_ prior to
yielding an error.

# Future possibilities
[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities

It seems reasonable to extend `base` to `git` dependencies, with
dpaoliello marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
something like:

```toml
[base-paths]
gh = "https://github.com/jonhoo"
```

```toml
[dependency]
foo = { git = "foo.git", base = "gh" }
```

However, this may get complicated if someone specifies `git`, `path`,
_and_ `base`.

It may also be useful to be able to use `base` for `patch` and `path`.