Make allow(missing_docs) for widgets much more tightly scoped#898
Merged
DJMcNab merged 1 commit intolinebender:mainfrom Mar 19, 2025
Merged
Make allow(missing_docs) for widgets much more tightly scoped#898DJMcNab merged 1 commit intolinebender:mainfrom
allow(missing_docs) for widgets much more tightly scoped#898DJMcNab merged 1 commit intolinebender:mainfrom
Conversation
Any new widget code needs to have full docs. Not having `missing_docs` trigger by default for this is really bad
waywardmonkeys
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Any new widget code needs to have full docs.
Not having
missing_docstrigger by default for new widgets is quite bad.See #875 and #882 for cases where this over-broad allow has bitten us.
The comment about not using
expect(missing_docs)because of rust-analyzer is confusing to me; I don't run into an issue. It might have been rust-lang/rust#130021, which is now fixed. That comment should have had a link to an upstream issue for more context.