rustdoc: move manual "extern crate" statements outside automatic "fn main"s in doctests
Gated on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48095 - I based the branch atop that so i could show off the change in one of its tests, the actual change in this PR is just the last commit
There are a handful of unfortunate assumptions in the way rustdoc processes `extern crate` statements in doctests:
1. In the absence of an `extern crate` statement in the test, if the test also uses the local crate name, it will automatically insert an `extern crate cratename;` statement into the test.
2. If the doctest *does* include an `extern crate` statement, rustdoc will not automatically insert one, on the assumption that doing so would introduce a duplicate import.
3. If a doctest does not have the substring `fn main` outside a comment, rustdoc will wrap the whole doctest in a generated `fn main` so it can be compiled.
In short, whenever you write a doctest like this...
```rust
//! extern crate my_crate;
//! my_crate::some_cool_thing();
```
...rustdoc will turn it into (something like) this:
```rust
fn main() {
extern crate my_crate;
my_crate::some_cool_thing();
}
```
This creates issues when compiled, because now `my_crate` isn't even properly in scope! This forces people who want to have multiple crates in their doctests (or an explicit `extern crate` statement) to also manually include their own `fn main`, so rustdoc doesn't put their imports in the wrong place.
This PR just taps into another processing step rustdoc does to doctests: Whenever you add an `#![inner_attribute]` to the beginning of a doctest, rustdoc will actually splice those out and put it before the generated `fn main`. Now, we can just do the same with `extern crate`s at the beginning, too, and get a much nicer experience.
Now, the above example will be converted into this:
```rust
extern crate my_crate;
fn main() {
my_crate::some_cool_thing();
}
```
A new section is added to both both struct and trait doc pages.
On struct/enum pages, a new 'Auto Trait Implementations' section displays any
synthetic implementations for auto traits. Currently, this is only done
for Send and Sync.
On trait pages, a new 'Auto Implementors' section displays all types
which automatically implement the trait. Effectively, this is a list of
all public types in the standard library.
Synthesized impls for a particular auto trait ('synthetic impls') take
into account generic bounds. For example, a type 'struct Foo<T>(T)' will
have 'impl<T> Send for Foo<T> where T: Send' generated for it.
Manual implementations of auto traits are also taken into account. If we have
the following types:
'struct Foo<T>(T)'
'struct Wrapper<T>(Foo<T>)'
'unsafe impl<T> Send for Wrapper<T>' // pretend that Wrapper<T> makes
this sound somehow
Then Wrapper will have the following impl generated:
'impl<T> Send for Wrapper<T>'
reflecting the fact that 'T: Send' need not hold for 'Wrapper<T>: Send'
to hold
Lifetimes, HRTBS, and projections (e.g. '<T as Iterator>::Item') are
taken into account by synthetic impls
However, if a type can *never* implement a particular auto trait
(e.g. 'struct MyStruct<T>(*const T)'), then a negative impl will be
generated (in this case, 'impl<T> !Send for MyStruct<T>')
All of this means that a user should be able to copy-paste a synthetic
impl into their code, without any observable changes in behavior
(assuming the rest of the program remains unchanged).
add unit tests for rustdoc's processing of doctests
cc #42018
There's a lot of things that rustdoc will do to massage doctests into something that can be compiled, and a lot of options that can be toggled to affect this. Hopefully this list of tests can show off that functionality.
The first commit is slightly unrelated but doesn't touch public functionality, because i found that if you have a manual `fn main`, it adds an extra line break at the end, whereas it would trim this extra line break if it were putting a `fn main` in automatically. That first commit makes it trim out that whitespace ahead of time.
Is it really time? Have our months, no, *years* of suffering come to an end? Are we finally able to cast off the pall of Hoedown? The weight which has dragged us down for so long?
-----
So, timeline for those who need to catch up:
* Way back in December 2016, [we decided we wanted to switch out the markdown renderer](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38400). However, this was put on hold because the build system at the time made it difficult to pull in dependencies from crates.io.
* A few months later, in March 2017, [the first PR was done, to switch out the renderers entirely](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/40338). The PR itself was fraught with CI and build system issues, but eventually landed.
* However, not all was well in the Rustdoc world. During the PR and shortly after, we noticed [some differences in the way the two parsers handled some things](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40912), and some of these differences were major enough to break the docs for some crates.
* A couple weeks afterward, [Hoedown was put back in](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/41290), at this point just to catch tests that Pulldown was "spuriously" running. This would at least provide some warning about spurious tests, rather than just breaking spontaneously.
* However, the problems had created enough noise by this point that just a few days after that, [Hoedown was switched back to the default](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/41431) while we came up with a solution for properly warning about the differences.
* That solution came a few weeks later, [as a series of warnings when the HTML emitted by the two parsers was semantically different](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/41991). But that came at a cost, as now rustdoc needed proc-macro support (the new crate needed some custom derives farther down its dependency tree), and the build system was not equipped to handle it at the time. It was worked on for three months as the issue stumped more and more people.
* In that time, [bootstrap was completely reworked](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/43059) to change how it ordered compilation, and [the method by which it built rustdoc would change](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/43482), as well. This allowed it to only be built after stage1, when proc-macros would be available, allowing the "rendering differences" PR to finally land.
* The warnings were not perfect, and revealed a few [spurious](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/44368) [differences](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/45421) between how we handled the renderers.
* Once these were handled, [we flipped the switch to turn on the "rendering difference" warnings all the time](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/45324), in October 2017. This began the "warning cycle" for this change, and landed in stable in 1.23, on 2018-01-04.
* Once those warnings hit stable, and after a couple weeks of seeing whether we would get any more reports than what we got from sitting on nightly/beta, [we switched the renderers](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/47398), making Pulldown the default but still offering the option to use Hoedown.
And that brings us to the present. We haven't received more new issues from this in the meantime, and the "switch by default" is now on beta. Our reasoning is that, at this point, anyone who would have been affected by this has run into it already.
Changed color of struct link from #ff794d to #2dbfb8 for Rust docs
This is in reference to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47801
here I have changed the default color of struct link for `#ff794d` to `#2dbfb8`
cc: @nagisa @timClicks
