Set cfg(test) when rustdoc is running with --test option
Following a [discussion on twitter](https://twitter.com/burntsushi5/status/1117091914199785473), I proposed this change. What do you think about it?
r? @QuietMisdreavus
cc @BurntSushi
- Makes the warning part of the `intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`
lint.
- Tightens the span to just the ambiguous link.
- Reports ambiguities across all three namespaces.
- Uses structured suggestions for disambiguation.
- Adds a test for the warnings.
rustdoc: add option to calculate "documentation coverage"
This PR adds a new flag to rustdoc, `--show-coverage`. When passed, this flag will make rustdoc count the number of items in a crate with documentation instead of generating docs. This count will be output as a table of each file in the crate, like this (when run on my crate `egg-mode`):
```
+-------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| File | Documented | Total | Percentage |
+-------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| src/auth.rs | 16 | 16 | 100.0% |
| src/common/mod.rs | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| src/common/response.rs | 9 | 9 | 100.0% |
| src/cursor.rs | 24 | 24 | 100.0% |
| src/direct/fun.rs | 6 | 6 | 100.0% |
| src/direct/mod.rs | 41 | 41 | 100.0% |
| src/entities.rs | 50 | 50 | 100.0% |
| src/error.rs | 27 | 27 | 100.0% |
| src/lib.rs | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| src/list/fun.rs | 19 | 19 | 100.0% |
| src/list/mod.rs | 22 | 22 | 100.0% |
| src/media/mod.rs | 27 | 27 | 100.0% |
| src/place/fun.rs | 8 | 8 | 100.0% |
| src/place/mod.rs | 35 | 35 | 100.0% |
| src/search.rs | 26 | 26 | 100.0% |
| src/service.rs | 74 | 74 | 100.0% |
| src/stream/mod.rs | 49 | 49 | 100.0% |
| src/tweet/fun.rs | 15 | 15 | 100.0% |
| src/tweet/mod.rs | 73 | 73 | 100.0% |
| src/user/fun.rs | 24 | 24 | 100.0% |
| src/user/mod.rs | 87 | 87 | 100.0% |
+-------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Total | 634 | 634 | 100.0% |
+-------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
```
Trait implementations are not counted because by default they "inherit" the docs from the trait, even though an impl can override those docs. Similarly, inherent impl blocks are not counted at all, because for the majority of cases such docs are not useful. (The usual pattern for inherent impl blocks is to throw all the methods on a type into a single impl block. Any docs you would put on that block would be better served on the type itself.)
In addition, `--show-coverage` can be combined with `--document-private-items` to get the coverage counts for everything in the crate, not just public items.
The coverage calculation is implemented as a late pass and two new sets of passes which strip out most of the work that rustdoc otherwise does when generating docs. The is because after the new pass is executed, rustdoc immediately closes instead of going on to generate documentation.
Many examples of coverage calculations have been included as `rustdoc-ui` tests.
r? @rust-lang/rustdoc
rustdoc: Don't modify library path for doctests
It shouldn't be needed anymore because doctests are no longer compiled with `prefer-dynamic` (since #54939).
r? @QuietMisdreavus
rustdoc: overhaul code block lexing errors
Fixes#53919.
This PR moves the reporting of code block lexing errors from rendering time to an early pass, so we can use the compiler's error reporting mechanisms. This dramatically improves the diagnostics in this situation: we now de-emphasize the lexing errors as a note under a warning that has a span and suggestion instead of just emitting errors at the top level.
Additionally, this PR generalizes the markdown -> source span calculation function, which should allow other rustdoc warnings to use better spans in the future.
Last, the PR makes sure that the code block is always emitted in the docs, even if it fails to highlight correctly.
Of note:
- The new pass unfortunately adds another pass over the docs to gather the doc blocks for syntax-checking. I wonder if this could be combined with the pass that looks for testable blocks? I'm not familiar with that code, so I don't know how feasible that is.
- `pulldown_cmark` doesn't make it easy to find the spans of the code blocks, so the code that calculates the spans is a little nasty. It works for all the test cases I threw at it, but I wouldn't be surprised if an edge case would break it. Should have a thorough review.
- This PR worsens the state of #56885, since those certain fatal lexing errors are now emitted before docs get generated at all.
This commit completely removes usage of the `panictry!` macro from
outside libsyntax. The macro causes parse errors to be fatal, so using
it in libsyntax_ext caused parse failures *within* a syntax extension to
be fatal, which is probably not intended.
Furthermore, this commit adds spans to diagnostics emitted by empty
extensions if they were missing, à la #56491.
add a lint group for lints emitted by rustdoc
As rustdoc adds more lints that it specifically manages, it would be nice to be able to lump them all together. This gives us a new group just for that.
I deliberately didn't include `missing_docs` because this is kind of a stepping stone for moving our lints into tool lints (i.e. `#![warn(rustdoc::private_doc_tests)]`), since all of these are specifically emitted by rustdoc. If we want to move `missing_docs` out of the compiler, that's also an option, but it would create a surprising change of behavior.
I also took the chance to rewrite the lint descriptions of these lints to better match the style of the other lints. `>_>`
Update panic message to be clearer about env-vars
Esteban Kuber requested that the panic message make it clear
that `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` is an environment variable. This change
makes that clear.
I understand that this may simply be closed if the concept isn't accepted, and I'd be fine with that :-)
Fixes#56734
Esteban Kuber requested that the panic message make it clear
that `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` is an environment variable. This change
makes that clear. Wording provided in part by David Tolnay.
This commit improves the calculation of code spans for intra-doc
resolution failures. All sugared doc comments should now have the
correct spans, including those where the comment is longer than the
docs.
It also fixes an issue where the spans were calculated incorrectly for
certain unsugared doc comments. The diagnostic will now always use the
span of the attributes, as originally intended.
Fixes#55964.
