get rid of some false negatives in rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links
rustdoc will not try to do intra-doc linking if the "path" of a link looks too much like a "real url".
however, only inline links (`[text](url)`) can actually contain a url, other types of links (reference links, shortcut links) contain a *reference* which is later resolved to an actual url.
the "path" in this case cannot be a url, and therefore it should not be skipped due to looking like a url.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54191
to minimize the number of false positives that will be introduced, the following heuristic is used:
If there's no backticks, be lenient revert to old behavior.
This is to prevent churn by linting on stuff that isn't meant to be a link.
only shortcut links have simple enough syntax that they
are likely to be written accidentlly, collapsed and reference links
need 4 metachars, and reference links will not usually use
backticks in the reference name.
therefore, only shortcut syntax gets the lenient behavior.
here's a truth table for how link kinds that cannot be urls are handled:
| | is shortcut link | not shortcut link |
|--------------|--------------------|-------------------|
| has backtick | never ignore | never ignore |
| no backtick | ignore if url-like | never ignore |
collapsed links and reference links have a pretty particular syntax,
it seems unlikely they would show up on accident.
Co-authored-by: León Orell Valerian Liehr <me@fmease.dev>
rustdoc will not try to do intra-doc linking if the "path"
of a link looks too much like a "real url".
however, only inline links ([text](url)) can actually contain
a url, other types of links (reference links, shortcut links)
contain a *reference* which is later resolved to an actual url.
the "path" in this case cannot be a url, and therefore it should
not be skipped due to looking like a url.
Co-authored-by: Michael Howell <michael@notriddle.com>
const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred
I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a `const fn` that was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const.
r? `@oli-obk`
Allow `#![doc(test(attr(..)))]` everywhere
This PR adds the ability to specify [`#![doc(test(attr(..)))]`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustdoc/write-documentation/the-doc-attribute.html#testattr) ~~at module level~~ everywhere in addition to allowing it at crate-root.
This is motivated by a recent PR #140323 (by ````@tgross35)```` where we have to duplicate 2 attributes to every single `f16` and `f128` doctests, by allowing `#![doc(test(attr(..)))]` at module level (and everywhere else) we can omit them entirely and just have (in both module):
```rust
#![doc(test(attr(feature(cfg_target_has_reliable_f16_f128))))]
#![doc(test(attr(expect(internal_features))))]
```
Those new attributes are appended to the one found at crate-root or at a previous module. Those "global" attributes are compatible with merged doctests (they already were before).
Given the small addition that this is, I'm proposing to insta-stabilize it, but I can feature-gate it if preferred.
Best reviewed commit by commit.
r? ````@GuillaumeGomez````
Use the informative error as the main const eval error message
r? `@RalfJung`
I only did the minimal changes necessary to the const eval error machinery. I'd prefer not to mix test changes with refactorings 😆
rustdoc: linking to a local proc macro no longer warns
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91274
tried to keep the fix general in case we ever have any other kind of item that occupies
multiple namespaces simultaniously.
Improve handling of rustdoc lints when used with raw doc fragments.
1. `rustdoc::bare_urls` no longer outputs incoherent suggestions if `source_span_for_markdown_range` returns None, instead outputting no suggestion
2. `source_span_for_markdown_range` has one more heuristic, so it will return `None` less often.
3. add ui test to make sure we don't emit nonsense suggestions.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135851
1. rustdoc::bare_urls doesn't output
invalid suggestions if source_span_for_markdown_range
fails to find a span
2. source_span_for_markdown_range tries harder to
return a span by applying an additional diagnostic
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135851
Emit a warning if the doctest `main` function will not be run
Fixes#140310.
I think we could try to go much further like adding a "link" (ie UI annotations) on the `main` function in the doctest. However that will require some more computation, not sure if it's worth it or not. Can still be done in a follow-up if we want it.
For now, this PR does two things:
1. Pass the `DiagCtxt` to the doctest parser to emit the warning.
2. Correctly generate the `Span` to where the doctest is starting (I hope the way I did it isn't too bad either...).
cc `@fmease`
r? `@notriddle`
rustdoc: Replace unstable flag `--doctest-compilation-args` with a simpler one: `--doctest-build-arg`
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134172.
Context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096#issuecomment-2776318800
Yeets the ad hoc shell-like lexer for 'nested' program arguments.
No FCP necessary since the flag is unstable.
I've chosen to replace `compilation` with `build` because it's shorter (you now need to pass it multiple times in order to pass many arguments to the doctest compiler, so it matters a bit) and since I prefer it esthetically.
**Issue**: Even though we don't process the argument passed to `--doctest-build-arg`, we end up passing it via an argument file (`rustc `@argfile`)` which delimits arguments by line break (LF or CRLF, [via](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/command-line-arguments.html#path-load-command-line-flags-from-a-path)) meaning ultimately the arguments still get split which is unfortunate. Still, I think this change is an improvement over the status quo.
I'll update the tracking issue if/once this PR merges. I'll also add the (CR)LF issue to 'unresolved question'.
r? GuillaumeGomez
r? notriddle
rustdoc: Fix doctest heuristic for main fn wrapping
Fixes#140412 which regressed in #140220 that I reviewed. As mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140220#issuecomment-2837061779, at the time I didn't have the time to re-review its latest changes and should've therefore invalided my previous "r=me" and blocked the PR on another review given the fragile nature of the doctest impl. This didn't happen which is my fault.
Contains some other small changes. Diff best reviewed modulo whitespace.
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
Fix detection of main function if there are expressions around it
Fixes#140162.
Fixes#139651.
Once this is merged, we can backport and I'll send a follow-up to emit a warning in case a `main` function is about to be "wrapped" (and therefore not run).
r? `@fmease`
try-job: x86_64-mingw-1
