The `Deref` cycle checks added as part of #80653 were "unbalanced" in the sense
that the main content code path checks for cycles _before_ descending, while the
sidebar checks _after_. Checking _before_ is correct, so this changes the
sidebar path to match the main content path.
Don't panic when an external crate can't be resolved
This isn't actually a bug, it can occur when rustdoc tries to resolve a
crate that isn't used in the main code.
Fixes#72381.
r? `@kinnison` if you have time, otherwise `@Manishearth`
Properly handle primitive disambiguators in rustdoc
Fixes#80559
r? ``@jyn514``
Is there a way to test that the generated intra-doc link is what I expect?
Rustdoc: only report broken ref-style links once
This PR assigns the markdown `LinkType` to each parsed link and passes this information into the link collector.
If a link can't be resolved in `resolve_with_disambiguator`, the failure is cached for the link types where we only want to report the error once (namely `Shortcut` and `Reference`).
Fixes #77681
Add suggestion for "ignore" doc code block
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30032.
This PR adds a suggestion to help users when they have a "ignore" doc code block which is invalid rust code.
r? `@jyn514`
Revert "Cleanup markdown span handling"
Reverts rust-lang/rust#80244. This caused a diagnostic regression, originally it was:
```
warning: unresolved link to `std::process::Comman`
--> link.rs:3:10
|
3 | //! [a]: std::process::Comman
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ no item named `Comman` in module `process`
|
= note: `#[warn(broken_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
```
but after that PR rustdoc now displays
```
warning: unresolved link to `std::process::Comman`
--> link.rs:1:14
|
1 | //! Links to [a] [link][a]
| ^^^ no item named `Comman` in module `process`
|
= note: `#[warn(broken_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
```
which IMO is much less clear.
cc `@bugadani,` thanks for catching this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77859.
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
Fix intra-doc links for non-path primitives
This does *not* currently work for associated items that are
auto-implemented by the compiler (e.g. `never::eq`), because they aren't
present in the source code. I plan to fix this in a follow-up PR.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63351 using the approach mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63351#issuecomment-683352130.
r? `@Manishearth`
cc `@petrochenkov` - this makes `rustc_resolve::Res` public, is that ok? I'd just add an identical type alias in rustdoc if not, which seems a waste.
This caused a diagnostic regression, originally it was:
```
warning: unresolved link to `std::process::Comman`
--> link.rs:3:10
|
3 | //! [a]: std::process::Comman
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ no item named `Comman` in module `process`
|
= note: `#[warn(broken_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
```
but after that PR rustdoc now displays
```
warning: unresolved link to `std::process::Comman`
--> link.rs:1:14
|
1 | //! Links to [a] [link][a]
| ^^^ no item named `Comman` in module `process`
|
= note: `#[warn(broken_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
```
which IMO is much less clear.
Extend doc keyword feature by allowing any ident
Part of #51315.
As suggested by ``@danielhenrymantilla`` in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51315#issuecomment-733879934), this PR extends `#[doc(keyword = "...")]` to allow any ident to be used as keyword. The final goal is to allow (proc-)macro crates' owners to write documentation of the keywords they might introduce.
r? ``@jyn514``
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`
