Tracking issue #9096.

Some questions I asked in #10593 (comment):

• Should we annotate artifact dependency nodes with a special (artifact deps) suffix?
• Should we show the information about which target platform an artifact dependency will be built on?
• How do we want to display the node of an artifact dependency with { …, lib = true }?

And some replies from @bstrie

Should we annotate artifact dependency nodes with a special (artifact deps) suffix?

There are multiple possible values for the artifact field, so I wouldn't mind having a (bin) or (staticlib) or (cdylib) suffix.

Should we show the information about which target platform an artifact dependency will be built on?

No, I think that's a detail that can be easily answered by checking Cargo.toml. But if you did decide to display this information, I would include it as part of the above annotation, e.g. (wasm32-wasi bin) or (x86_64-unknown-linux-musl staticlib).

How do we want to display the node of an artifact dependency with { …, lib = true }?

I think it should show up multiple times in the tree graph. The lib node should show up as an entirely normal dependency, whereas the artifact node should be annotated as mentioned above.

Propose solution

Since this is an unstable, we can ship an initial version and iterate on it then.