Skip to content

ci: give dtolnay/rust-toolchain a valid toolchain input - #119

Merged
hyperpolymath merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci/rust-toolchain-input
Oct 20, 2026
Merged

hyperpolymath merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
ci/rust-toolchain-input

Conversation

@hyperpolymath

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What was wrong

dtolnay/rust-toolchain@v1 declares toolchain as required with no default (only branches like @stable supply one). Affected steps either set none ('toolchain' is a required input), set an invalid value (v1), or carry a second with: key injected above the real one by an earlier bulk edit. A duplicate key makes GitHub reject the whole workflow file.

Changes

Each affected step now has exactly one with: and a valid toolchain. Valid existing values are kept.

  • rust-ci.yml: drop the injected duplicate with:/toolchain: v1; add toolchain: stable to the test job's step.
  • coverage.yml: toolchain: v1 → stable.

Not fixed here

coverage.yml is also blocked by an older actions.lock mismatch (an action bumped without regenerating the lock). GitHub won't start it until the lock is regenerated; that is separate and unchanged.

Testing

cargo check, fmt, clippy -D warnings and test pass locally on stable. YAML parses; standards' check-lock-sync.sh reports no new failures.


Generated by Claude Code

dtolnay/rust-toolchain at @v1 (and at its master-branch commits)
declares `toolchain` as required with no default; only the
toolchain-named branches such as @stable supply one. Steps here either:

- set no `toolchain:` at all, so the action fails with "'toolchain' is a
  required input";
- set an invalid value (v1, master, or a note), which rustup cannot
  install; or
- carry a second `with:` key injected above the real one by an earlier
  bulk edit. A duplicate key makes GitHub reject the whole workflow file.

Each affected step now has exactly one `with:` with a valid toolchain:
an injected toolchain-only `with:` block is dropped, an invalid value
becomes `stable`, and a step with none gets `toolchain: stable`. An
existing valid value ('1.97.0', ${{ env.RUST_VERSION }}, stable) is
kept as is.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0132Cdz3iwk2QGKv2sUhhsye
@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath marked this pull request as ready for review October 20, 2026 17:10
@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath merged commit ff8ed0d into main Oct 20, 2026
23 of 37 checks passed
@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath deleted the ci/rust-toolchain-input branch October 20, 2026 17:11
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 20, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-20T17:12:29.058865Z 4016425 Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Oct 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review in Change Stack →

Note

Currently processing new changes in this PR. This may take a few minutes, please wait...

⚙️ Run configuration
  • Configuration used: Organization UI
  • Review profile: ASSERTIVE
  • Plan: Advanced
  • Run ID: c57501d9-2a3b-4d2b-bd5c-4d7fefb57201
📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 57ae001 and 4016425.

📒 Files selected for processing: 2
  • .github/workflows/coverage.yml
  • .github/workflows/rust-ci.yml
  • Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants