chore(deps): Upgrade Rust to 1.61.0 #12812
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Luke Steensen <[email protected]>
New image includes more recent GCC which should support `-static-pie` Signed-off-by: Luke Steensen <[email protected]>
✅ Deploy Preview for vector-project canceled.
|
github-actions
bot
added
domain: ci
Signed-off-by: Luke Steensen <[email protected]>
lib/value/src/value.rs
Outdated
| (Value::Null, Value::Null) => true, | ||
| (Self::Null, Self::Null) => true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems.... odd. Does it only complain about this specific one? If that's the case, I'd rather disable this Clippy lint. I'm fine using Self consistently, but it's just confusing to mix the two styles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any other opinions here? I can see both sides of the argument.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am confused too. Which clippy rule is flagged here? We should either use Self everywhere here, or Value.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
error: unnecessary structure name repetition
--> lib/value/src/value.rs:103:14
|
103 | (Value::Null, Value::Null) => true,
| ^^^^^ help: use the applicable keyword: `Self`
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> lib/value/src/lib.rs:7:5
|
7 | clippy::nursery,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: `#[deny(clippy::use_self)]` implied by `#[deny(clippy::nursery)]`
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#use_self
error: unnecessary structure name repetition
--> lib/value/src/value.rs:103:27
|
103 | (Value::Null, Value::Null) => true,
| ^^^^^ help: use the applicable keyword: `Self`
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#use_self
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's weird that it only triggers on this variant. IMO they all should reference Self, so I would prefer keeping the lint. I completely agree it's confusing to mix the two styles, though.
The false negative is a known bug apparently fixed in Rust 1.61 (oops, apparently the fix is not released yet).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd be 👍 on using Self everywhere here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated that and checking to see if it's angry about that at all
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I believe it was only catching the non-tuple, non-struct variant here but probably intends to cover all of them. I'd agree with updating to Self everywhere.
|
How's progress on this? |
|
@spencergilbert I would say progress is stalled at the moment. We still have similar issues with cross compilation that we had with the failed 1.59 upgrade, and I wasn't able to work out any obvious solutions. |
👍 |
Signed-off-by: Toby Lawrence <[email protected]>
Soak Test ResultsBaseline: fd17b26 ExplanationA soak test is an integrated performance test for vector in a repeatable rig, with varying configuration for vector. What follows is a statistical summary of a brief vector run for each configuration across SHAs given above. The goal of these tests are to determine, quickly, if vector performance is changed and to what degree by a pull request. Where appropriate units are scaled per-core. The table below, if present, lists those experiments that have experienced a statistically significant change in their throughput performance between baseline and comparision SHAs, with 90.0% confidence OR have been detected as newly erratic. Negative values mean that baseline is faster, positive comparison. Results that do not exhibit more than a ±8.87% change in mean throughput are discarded. An experiment is erratic if its coefficient of variation is greater than 0.3. The abbreviated table will be omitted if no interesting changes are observed. No interesting changes in throughput with confidence ≥ 90.00% and absolute Δ mean >= ±8.87%: Fine details of change detection per experiment.
|
Signed-off-by: Spencer Gilbert <[email protected]>
github-actions
bot
added
domain: topology
Signed-off-by: Spencer Gilbert <[email protected]>
Soak Test ResultsBaseline: 8069866 ExplanationA soak test is an integrated performance test for vector in a repeatable rig, with varying configuration for vector. What follows is a statistical summary of a brief vector run for each configuration across SHAs given above. The goal of these tests are to determine, quickly, if vector performance is changed and to what degree by a pull request. Where appropriate units are scaled per-core. The table below, if present, lists those experiments that have experienced a statistically significant change in their throughput performance between baseline and comparision SHAs, with 90.0% confidence OR have been detected as newly erratic. Negative values mean that baseline is faster, positive comparison. Results that do not exhibit more than a ±8.87% change in mean throughput are discarded. An experiment is erratic if its coefficient of variation is greater than 0.3. The abbreviated table will be omitted if no interesting changes are observed. No interesting changes in throughput with confidence ≥ 90.00% and absolute Δ mean >= ±8.87%: Fine details of change detection per experiment.
|
spencergilbert
added
the
ci-condition: integration tests enable
|
@tobz spent a little time looking at why we're seeing missing event failures now - I didn't notice anything in the changelogs either. Mind taking a look when you can? |
Signed-off-by: Spencer Gilbert <[email protected]>
github-actions
bot
added
the
domain: releasing
Signed-off-by: Toby Lawrence <[email protected]>
tobz
added
the
ci-condition: k8s e2e tests enable
Soak Test ResultsBaseline: 4a82f5f ExplanationA soak test is an integrated performance test for vector in a repeatable rig, with varying configuration for vector. What follows is a statistical summary of a brief vector run for each configuration across SHAs given above. The goal of these tests are to determine, quickly, if vector performance is changed and to what degree by a pull request. Where appropriate units are scaled per-core. The table below, if present, lists those experiments that have experienced a statistically significant change in their throughput performance between baseline and comparision SHAs, with 90.0% confidence OR have been detected as newly erratic. Negative values mean that baseline is faster, positive comparison. Results that do not exhibit more than a ±8.87% change in mean throughput are discarded. An experiment is erratic if its coefficient of variation is greater than 0.3. The abbreviated table will be omitted if no interesting changes are observed. No interesting changes in throughput with confidence ≥ 90.00% and absolute Δ mean >= ±8.87%: Fine details of change detection per experiment.
|
Soak Test ResultsBaseline: ed2ebbc ExplanationA soak test is an integrated performance test for vector in a repeatable rig, with varying configuration for vector. What follows is a statistical summary of a brief vector run for each configuration across SHAs given above. The goal of these tests are to determine, quickly, if vector performance is changed and to what degree by a pull request. Where appropriate units are scaled per-core. The table below, if present, lists those experiments that have experienced a statistically significant change in their throughput performance between baseline and comparision SHAs, with 90.0% confidence OR have been detected as newly erratic. Negative values mean that baseline is faster, positive comparison. Results that do not exhibit more than a ±8.87% change in mean throughput are discarded. An experiment is erratic if its coefficient of variation is greater than 0.3. The abbreviated table will be omitted if no interesting changes are observed. No interesting changes in throughput with confidence ≥ 90.00% and absolute Δ mean >= ±8.87%: Fine details of change detection per experiment.
|
|
🥳 |
|
Thanks to @tobz for tracking this one down! And to @lukesteensen and @spencergilbert for shepherding it in. |
No description provided.