Rustdoc check option
The ultimate goal behind this option would be to have `rustdoc --check` being run when you use `cargo check` as a second step.
r? `@jyn514`
rustdoc: skip #[allow(missing docs)] for docs in coverage report
During the document coverage reporting with:
```bash
rustdoc something.rs -Z unstable-options --show-coverage
```
the coverage report counts code that is marked with `#[allow(missing_docs)]` for the calculation, which outputs lower numbers in the coverage report even though these parts should be ignored for the calculation.
Right now I'm not sure how this can be tested (CI)? (I verified it by hand and ran the unit tests)
r? `@jyn514`
**Reference:** Fixes#76121
During the document coverage reporting with
```bash
rustdoc something.rs -Z unstable-options --show-coverage
```
the coverage report also includes parts of the code that are marked
with `#[allow(missing_docs)]`, which outputs lower numbers in the
coverage report even though these parts should be ignored for the
calculation.
Co-authored-by: Joshua Nelson <joshua@yottadb.com>
Allow generic parameters in intra-doc links
Fixes#62834.
---
The contents of the generics will be mostly ignored (except for warning
if fully-qualified syntax is used, which is currently unsupported in
intra-doc links - see issue #74563).
* Allow links like `Vec<T>`, `Result<T, E>`, and `Option<Box<T>>`
* Allow links like `Vec::<T>::new()`
* Warn on
* Unbalanced angle brackets (e.g. `Vec<T` or `Vec<T>>`)
* Missing type to apply generics to (`<T>` or `<Box<T>>`)
* Use of fully-qualified syntax (`<Vec as IntoIterator>::into_iter`)
* Invalid path separator (`Vec:<T>:new`)
* Too many angle brackets (`Vec<<T>>`)
* Empty angle brackets (`Vec<>`)
Note that this implementation *does* allow some constructs that aren't
valid in the actual Rust syntax, for example `Box::<T>new()`. That may
not be supported in rustdoc in the future; it is an implementation
detail.
The contents of the generics will be mostly ignored (except for warning
if fully-qualified syntax is used, which is currently unsupported in
intra-doc links - see issue #74563).
* Allow links like `Vec<T>`, `Result<T, E>`, and `Option<Box<T>>`
* Allow links like `Vec::<T>::new()`
* Warn on
* Unbalanced angle brackets (e.g. `Vec<T` or `Vec<T>>`)
* Missing type to apply generics to (`<T>` or `<Box<T>>`)
* Use of fully-qualified syntax (`<Vec as IntoIterator>::into_iter`)
* Invalid path separator (`Vec:<T>:new`)
* Too many angle brackets (`Vec<<T>>`)
* Empty angle brackets (`Vec<>`)
Note that this implementation *does* allow some constructs that aren't
valid in the actual Rust syntax, for example `Box::<T>new()`. That may
not be supported in rustdoc in the future; it is an implementation
detail.
Improve rustdoc error for failed intra-doc link resolution
The previous error was confusing since it made it sound like you can't
link to items that are defined outside the current module.
Also suggested importing the item.
r? @jyn514
The previous error was confusing since it made it sound like you can't
link to items that are defined outside the current module.
Also suggested importing the item.
