rustdoc: refactor: move all static-file include!s into a single module
This is a smaller refactor that creates a new module `rustdoc::html::static_files`, which contains a bunch of `static` variables with all the files in `html/static` that we use. The idea behind moving them all here was to remove the duplicate `include_bytes!()` that are used by the theme-checker code. It also continues to centralize more operations in rustdoc.
This is a (much) more constrained version of #54772 that also aims at
improving the situation in #34681. It removes any font specifications
that are not the "official" rustdoc font, and instead relies on the
browser to provide the fallback font if the official on is not
available. On Linux systems, this is particularly important, as fonts
like Helvetica, Arial, and Times often look pretty bad since they're
pulled from extracted MS fonts. A specification like `serif` or
`sans-serif` lets the browser instead choose a good font.
rustdoc: refactor: centralize all command-line argument parsing
This is something i've wanted to do for a while, since we keep having to add new arguments to places like `rust_input` or `core::run_core` whenever we add a new CLI flag or the like. Those functions have inflated up to 11-19, and in some cases hiding away the locations where some CLI flags were being parsed, obscuring their use. Now, we have a central place where all command-line configuration occurs, including argument validation.
One note about the design: i grouped together all the arguments that `html::render::run` needed, so that i could pass them on from compilation in one lump instead of trying to thread through individual items or clone the entire blob ahead of time.
One other thing this adds is that rustdoc also now recognizes all the `-Z` options that rustc does, since we were manually grabbing a few previously. Now we parse a full `DebuggingOptions` struct and hand it directly to rustc when scraping docs.
Add index page argument
@Mark-Simulacrum: I might need some help from you: in bootstrap, I want to add an argument (a new flag added into `rustdoc`) in order to generate the current index directly when `rustdoc` is documenting the `std` lib. However, my change in `bootstrap` didn't do it and I assume it must be moved inside the `Std` struct. But there, I don't see how to pass it to `rustdoc` through `cargo`. Did I miss anything?
r? @QuietMisdreavus
[librustdoc] Disable spellcheck for search field
This disables spellchecking for the search field in the rustdoc web interface.
As someone who uses Safari to browse through Rust docs, spellchecking gets really annoying.
Detect if access to localStorage is forbidden by the user's browser
If the user's cookie/persistent storage setting forbid access to `localStorage`, catch the exception and abort the access.
Currently, attempting to use the expand/contract links at the top of the page for structs/consts/etc. fails due to an unhandled error while accessing `localStorage`, if such access is forbidden, as the exception from the failed access propagates all the way out, interrupting the expand/contract. Instead, I would like to degrade gracefully; the access won't happen (the collapse/expand state won't get persisted) but the actual expanding/contracting of the item will go on to succeed.
Fixes#55079
1. Extract the tests for whether or not we have workable localStorage out into
a helper method, so it can be more easily reused
2. Use it in getCurrentValue() too, for the same reasons, as suggested in code
review
If the user's cookie/persistent storage setting forbid access to localStorage,
catch the exception and abort the access.
Currently, attempting to use the expand/contract links at the top of the page
for structs/consts/etc. fails due to an unhandled error while accessing
localStorage, if such access is forbidden, as the exception from the failed
access propagates all the way out, interrupting the expand/contract. Instead, I
would like to degrade gracefully; the access won't happen (the collapse/expand
state won't get persisted) but the actual expanding/contracting of the item
will go on to succeed.
Fixes#55079
rustdoc: give proc-macros their own pages
related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49553 but i don't think it'll fix it
Currently, rustdoc doesn't expose proc-macros all that well. In the source crate, only their definition function is exposed, but when re-exported, they're treated as a macro! This is an awkward situation in all accounts. This PR checks functions to see whether they have any of `#[proc_macro]`, `#[proc_macro_attribute]`, or `#[proc_macro_derive]`, and exposes them as macros instead. In addition, attributes and derives are exposed differently than other macros, getting their own item-type, CSS class, and module heading.
Function-like proc-macros are lumped in with `macro_rules!` macros, but they get a different declaration block (i'm open to tweaking this, it's just what i thought of given how function-proc-macros operate):
Proc-macro attributes and derives get their own pages, with a representative declaration block. Derive macros also show off their helper attributes:
There's one wrinkle which this PR doesn't address, which is why i didn't mark this as fixing the linked issue. Currently, proc-macros don't expose their attributes or source span across crates, so while rustdoc knows they exist, that's about all the information it gets. This leads to an "inlined" macro that has absolutely no docs on it, and no `[src]` link to show you where it was declared.
The way i got around it was to keep proc-macro re-export disabled, since we do get enough information across crates to properly link to the source page:
Until we can get a proc-macro's docs (and ideally also its source span) across crates, i believe this is the best way forward.
