rust: Rename BuildChunkedOCI struct to BuildChunkedOCIOpts#5273
rust: Rename BuildChunkedOCI struct to BuildChunkedOCIOpts#5273cgwalters merged 2 commits intocoreos:mainfrom
BuildChunkedOCI struct to BuildChunkedOCIOpts#5273Conversation
That way it's clearer what this clappy struct powers.
|
Hmm I believe you there's a bug but I am confused how it can fail for (just) you; we do have passing tests for this code in e.g. https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/actions/runs/13121766353/job/36610259115?pr=5272 |
For consistency, but also because it can be confusing to have the enum
variant be named the same as the underlying struct.
This caused a runtime issue for me that I can't reproduce anymore, but
for posterity:
```
$ rpm-ostree experimental compose build-chunked-oci
thread 'tokio-runtime-worker' panicked at /var/home/jlebon/.cargo/registry/src/index.crates.io-6f17d22bba15001f/clap_builder-4.5.27/src/builder/debug_asserts.rs:281:9:
Command build-chunked-oci: Argument group name must be unique
'BuildChunkedOCI' is already in use
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
error: task 1 panicked with message "Command build-chunked-oci: Argument group name must be unique\n\n\t'BuildChunkedOCI' is already in use"
```
|
OK yeah, I'm not sure what happened but I can't reproduce the runtime error anymore. I did upgrade my Rust toolchain in the meantime so possibly related? Still kept the changes though since it makes things a bit clearer, but also fine without it. |
|
Searching the error message brings up clap-rs/clap#4279, which also confirms my suspicion that it's related to flattening. Though it looks like it was fixed a while ago. |
|
@jlebon: The following tests failed, say
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
2 participants
For consistency, but also because it can be confusing to have the enum variant be named the same as the underlying struct.
This caused a runtime issue for me that I can't reproduce anymore, but for posterity: