HoKim98 requested fitzgen for a review on PR #12479.
HoKim98 requested wasmtime-core-reviewers for a review on PR #12479.
HoKim98 opened PR #12479 from ulagbulag:fix/skip-importing-path-regardless-of-cache-feature to bytecodealliance:main:
<!--
Please make sure you include the following information:
If this work has been discussed elsewhere, please include a link to that
conversation. If it was discussed in an issue, just mention "issue #...".Explain why this change is needed. If the details are in an issue already,
this can be brief.Our development process is documented in the Wasmtime book:
https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-development-process.htmlPlease ensure all communication follows the code of conduct:
https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
-->This PR just skips importing
std::path::Pathoncrates/wasmtime/src/config.rsregardless ofcachefeature.Currently, only either
craneliftandwinitfeature requires importing it.cachefeature is now unrelated.The only use-case is here below:
github-actions[bot] added the label wasmtime:api on PR #12479.
github-actions[bot] added the label wasmtime:config on PR #12479.
github-actions[bot] commented on PR #12479:
Label Messager: wasmtime:config
It looks like you are changing Wasmtime's configuration options. Make sure to
complete this check list:
[ ] If you added a new
Configmethod, you wrote extensive documentation for
it.<details>
Our documentation should be of the following form:
```text
Short, simple summary sentence.More details. These details can be multiple paragraphs. There should be
information about not just the method, but its parameters and results as
well.Is this method fallible? If so, when can it return an error?
Can this method panic? If so, when does it panic?
Example
Optional example here.
```</details>
[ ] If you added a new
Configmethod, or modified an existing one, you
ensured that this configuration is exercised by the fuzz targets.<details>
For example, if you expose a new strategy for allocating the next instance
slot inside the pooling allocator, you should ensure that at least one of our
fuzz targets exercises that new strategy.Often, all that is required of you is to ensure that there is a knob for this
configuration option in [wasmtime_fuzzing::Config][fuzzing-config] (or one
of its nestedstructs).Rarely, this may require authoring a new fuzz target to specifically test this
configuration. See [our docs on fuzzing][fuzzing-docs] for more details.</details>
[ ] If you are enabling a configuration option by default, make sure that it
has been fuzzed for at least two weeks before turning it on by default.[fuzzing-config]: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/ca0e8d0a1d8cefc0496dba2f77a670571d8fdcab/crates/fuzzing/src/generators.rs#L182-L194
[fuzzing-docs]: https://docs.wasmtime.dev/contributing-fuzzing.html
<details>
To modify this label's message, edit the <code>.github/label-messager/wasmtime-config.md</code> file.
To add new label messages or remove existing label messages, edit the
<code>.github/label-messager.json</code> configuration file.</details>
alexcrichton commented on PR #12479:
Thanks! Could you add a check here with
--features runtime,cacheto help catch this in the future too?
HoKim98 requested wasmtime-default-reviewers for a review on PR #12479.
HoKim98 updated PR #12479.
HoKim98 commented on PR #12479:
Sure! Added the requested test case at the end.
alexcrichton submitted PR review:
Thanks!
alexcrichton added PR #12479 fix: skip importing std::path::Path regardless of cache feature to the merge queue.
alexcrichton merged PR #12479.
alexcrichton removed PR #12479 fix: skip importing std::path::Path regardless of cache feature from the merge queue.
Last updated: Feb 24 2026 at 04:36 UTC