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.
This is not ideal because it means `deny(broken_intra_doc_links)` will
no longer `deny(private_intra_doc_links)`. However, it can't be fixed
with a new lint group, because `broken` is already in the `rustdoc` lint
group; there would need to be a way to nest groups somehow.
This also removes the early `return` so that the link will be generated
even though it gives a warning.
Refactor and fix intra-doc link diagnostics, and fix links to primitives
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76925, closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76693, closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76692.
Originally I only meant to fix#76925. But the hack with `has_primitive` was so bad it was easier to fix the primitive issues than to try and work around it.
Note that this still has one bug: `std::primitive::i32::MAX` does not resolve. However, this fixes the ICE so I'm fine with fixing the link in a later PR.
This is part of a series of refactors to make #76467 possible.
This is best reviewed commit-by-commit; it has detailed commit messages.
r? `@euclio`
