Skip to content

Include SBOM outputs in fingerprints #17216

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
weihanglo merged 2 commits into from
Jul 16, 2026
+35 −6
Merged

Include SBOM outputs in fingerprints #17216

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
46dd86b
test: reproduce missing SBOM after enabling it
TorinAsakura Jul 16, 2026
bd1b857
fix: include SBOM outputs in fingerprints
TorinAsakura Jul 16, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 1 addition & 6 deletions src/cargo/core/compiler/fingerprint/mod.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1611,12 +1611,7 @@ fn calculate_normal(
let outputs = build_runner
.outputs(unit)?
.iter()
.filter(|output| {
!matches!(
output.flavor,
FileFlavor::DebugInfo | FileFlavor::Auxiliary | FileFlavor::Sbom
)
})
.filter(|output| !matches!(output.flavor, FileFlavor::DebugInfo | FileFlavor::Auxiliary))
.map(|output| output.path.clone())
.collect();

Expand Down
34 changes: 34 additions & 0 deletions tests/testsuite/sbom.rs
View file
Open in desktop

@weihanglo weihanglo Jul 14, 2026 •
edited by rustbot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, we normally follow the pattern C-TEST described in this doc. The basic idea is that your first commit becomes a reproduction of the buggy behavior, and your second commit contains the diff that shows the behavior change. With that we can make sure we are not fixing a non-existing issue. Mind tweaking your git commits a bit?

View changes since the review

@TorinAsakura TorinAsakura Jul 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Something like this? 9beeb7b

Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -94,6 +94,40 @@ fn simple() {
);
}

#[cargo_test]
fn enabling_sbom_invalidates_fingerprint() {
let p = project()
.file("Cargo.toml", &basic_bin_manifest("foo"))
.file("src/main.rs", r#"fn main() {}"#)
.build();

p.cargo("build").run();

let file = append_sbom_suffix(&p.bin("foo"));
assert!(!file.exists());

p.cargo("build -Zsbom")
.env("CARGO_BUILD_SBOM", "true")
.masquerade_as_nightly_cargo(&["sbom"])
.with_stderr_data(cargo_test_support::str![[r#"
[COMPILING] foo v0.5.0 ([ROOT]/foo)
[FINISHED] `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in [ELAPSED]s

"#]])
.run();

assert!(file.is_file());

p.cargo("build -Zsbom")
.env("CARGO_BUILD_SBOM", "true")
.masquerade_as_nightly_cargo(&["sbom"])
.with_stderr_data(cargo_test_support::str![[r#"
[FINISHED] `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in [ELAPSED]s

"#]])
.run();
Comment on lines +109 to +128

@weihanglo weihanglo Jul 16, 2026 •
edited by rustbot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you add .with_stderr_data(…) to assert something was actually recompiled?

View changes since the review

@TorinAsakura TorinAsakura Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

0444bfd

@weihanglo weihanglo Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you again follow the C-TEST pattern? Feel free to rebase and clean up history

@TorinAsakura TorinAsakura Jul 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, sorry — I’m still getting used to the C-TEST convention. bd1b857

}

#[cargo_test]
fn with_multiple_crate_types() {
let p = project()
Expand Down