Add check to not doc-scrape proc-macro units. Fixes #10571.#11423
Closed
willcrichton wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Closed
Add check to not doc-scrape proc-macro units. Fixes #10571.#11423willcrichton wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
willcrichton wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
|
r? @epage (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
willcrichton
force-pushed
the
fix-issue-10571
branch
from
178f8bf to
390383e
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
r? @weihanglo |
This was referenced Nov 25, 2022
Contributor
Author
|
Closing this in favor of #11430. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2022
Improve strategy for selecting targets to be scraped for examples ### What does this PR try to resolve? After #10343, we have identified a clear set of conditions for whether a particular target should be considered by `-Zrustdoc-scrape-examples`. These conditions are described more clearly in #11425. However, after some testing with complex Cargo workspaces (e.g. [wasmtime](https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/)), I realized that the current approach of modifying the `CompileFilter` did not correctly implement this new specification. For example, a target with `doc = false` should not be scraped by default since it is not a documented unit, but the current approach would potentially include such a target for scraping. This PR provides a new approach which I believe correctly implements the specification: 1. `generate_targets` is called with the same parameters except the `mode` which becomes `CompileMode::Docscrape` instead of `CompileMode::Doc`. `filter_default_targets` generates the same targets for `Docscrape` as for `Doc`. 2. Inside `generate_targets`, an initial set of `Proposal`s are created. This set of proposals is extended with further proposals based on targets identified as `doc-scrape-examples = true`, or Example targets where possible. This PR subsumes #11423, and also fixes #10571. ### How should we test and review this PR? I have added another test `docscrape::only_scrape_documented_targets` to verify that only documented or explicitly-enabled targets are included for scraping. r? `@weihanglo`
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
4 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.
What does this PR try to resolve?
This PR fixes #10571, where the new doc-scrape feature panics when asked to scrape a proc-macro library. A missing check was added to
create_bcx.How should we test and review this PR?
A corresponding unit test has been added to demonstrate the fix.