editoast: extract osm_to_railjson in separate binary

[Tristramg]

This is more to open a discussion:

As compile time are unbearable, we could split the editoast binary into smaller ones. As we already started separating crates, this could be quite simple.

In this pull request, osm-to-railjson in separated.

It now must be called as cargo run -p osm_to_railjson

The improvement are not spectacular:

Now:
- 541 units
- total build time: 175.5s
- editoast bin: 109s
- minor change build time: 25s
- binary size (debug): 312Mb

Before:
- 561 units
- total build time: 182.4s
- editoast bin: 109s
- minor change build time: 26secs
- binary size (debug): 314Mb

I’m not sure if it would make sens to extract the other commands that are more close to the editoast core?

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.58%. Comparing base (00df2a1) to head (b72c427).
Report is 6 commits behind head on dev.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
editoast/osm_to_railjson/src/main.rs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev   #10215      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.67%   81.58%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files        1071     1041      -30     
  Lines      106118   104586    -1532     
  Branches      727      727              
==========================================
- Hits        86673    85322    -1351     
+ Misses      19406    19225     -181     
  Partials       39       39              

Flag	Coverage Δ
editoast	73.72% <0.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
front	89.36% <ø> (ø)
gateway	2.18% <ø> (ø)
osrdyne	3.28% <ø> (ø)
railjson_generator	?
tests	87.05% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[woshilapin]

We might need an exhaustive search for osm_to_railjson in our repos to see if it's used somewhere (documentation, CI scripts, deployment, charts, etc.). But in general, I'd say it'd be nice that the binaries are separated, it might indeed help a bit the compilation times (especially not wasting time compiling dependencies that are not used.

[Castavo]

Isn't splitting the binary for osm-to-railjson especially beneficial to osm-to-railjson ? This binary alone must be much faster to compile now, isn't it ?

[Tristramg]

Il did a grep on my sncf folder with different projects for osm-to-railjson and osm_to_railjson and didn’t found anything. Maybe it’s used somewhere else I’m not aware of? I don’t think as it’s quite a nice use

@Castavo indeed :) but the much more people working on the general editoast than osm-to-railjson that hasn’t changed in over a year

[leovalais]

Thanks!