rustdoc: run css and html minifier at build instead of runtime

[notriddle]

This way, adding a bunch of comments to the JS files won't make rustdoc slower.

Meant to address #136161 (comment)

[rustbot]

r? @fmease

rustbot has assigned @fmease.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 68646e9 with merge c2ca307...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: c2ca307 (c2ca3075e8728fb554521c1e355e4dcc332479a2)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (c2ca307): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-5.4%, -0.2%]	21
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-5.4%, -0.7%]	22
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-5.4%, -0.2%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.5%, secondary -2.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.9%	[-1.9%, -1.9%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.1%	[-2.3%, -1.8%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-1.9%, 2.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -2.7%, secondary -3.2%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-4.0%, -2.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.2%	[-4.0%, -1.5%]	17
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.7%	[-4.0%, -2.2%]	4

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 777.437s -> 777.798s (0.05%)
Artifact size: 328.50 MiB -> 328.67 MiB (0.05%)

[GuillaumeGomez]

Seems like we're all good. :)

[lolbinarycat]

perhaps for non-nightly builds the unminified source could be excluded entirely? although i'm not sure if that would violate some policy, since it would introduce the possibility of bugs that only show up on more stable releases.

[notriddle]

I doubt that would be significant compared to all the other nightly-only code that gets included in stable rust.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Depends actually, the JS is quite sizeable after all.

[notriddle]

Depends actually, the JS is quite sizeable after all.

search.js is (230744 / 141483120) * 100% =~ 0.16% the size of librustc_driver.

$ wc -c src/librustdoc/html/static/js/*.js build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustdoc build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/lib/librustc_driver-d2315ca75e7f51a5.so  86194 src/librustdoc/html/static/js/main.js 5350 src/librustdoc/html/static/js/scrape-examples.js 230744 src/librustdoc/html/static/js/search.js 11117 src/librustdoc/html/static/js/settings.js 6160 src/librustdoc/html/static/js/src-script.js 13611 src/librustdoc/html/static/js/storage.js 15198168 build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rustdoc141483120 build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/lib/librustc_driver-d2315ca75e7f51a5.so157034464 total

[GuillaumeGomez]

librustc_driver is not the most common case. But the question here is more like: how much code would it need for us to be able to only add unminified code in rustdoc nightly builds?

[notriddle]

librustc_driver is not the most common case.

I have no idea what you mean.

But the question here is more like: how much code would it need for us to be able to only add unminified code in rustdoc nightly builds?

The problem isn't work. It's risk.

First, because this isn't actually unreachable code in a stable build. You can use "nightly-only features" like this one with the RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP env variable. RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1 cargo +beta rustdoc -- -Zdisable-minification=1 probably won't get used very often, but if I had to debug a bug that appeared in stable but not in nightly, it would be handy to have.

Second, while I'm not aware of a policy against trying to strip "unreachable" code from the stable compiler, it seems pretty rare. I've tried a few major unstable features with RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1, and was able to use -Zpolonius and -Znext-solver=globally with a stable compiler (the polonius build was much slower than normal, so I'm pretty sure the flag wasn't just ignored).

[GuillaumeGomez]

librustc_driver is not the most common case.

I have no idea what you mean.

I meant in term of doc size since it's what you displayed.

The problem isn't work. It's risk.

...

With your explanation, I agree. I forgot we could run unstable features with stable channel. Then we should provide both JS all the time.

[GuillaumeGomez]

If PR is ready for you, r=me and thanks!

[notriddle]

I meant in term of doc size since it's what you displayed.

The unminified JS and CSS aren't included in the emitted documentation unless you supply the -Zdisable-minification parameter. They're baked into the rustdoc binary. This change should have no effect on the size of the rust-docs.tar.gz file, or on the storage requirements for docs.rs.

@bors r=GuillaumeGomez

[bors]

📌 Commit 68646e9 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[fmease]

To place it above the next rollup @bors p=6

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 68646e9 with merge 84da3b4...

[rust-log-analyzer]

The job aarch64-gnu-debug failed! Check out the build log: (web)(plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

drwxrwxrwt 16 root root 4.0K Feb 5 07:25 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 runner docker 222K Feb 5 07:25 cpu-aarch64-gnu-debug.csv
-rw-r--r-- 1 runner docker 74K Feb 5 07:25 metrics-aarch64-gnu-debug.json
Attempting with retry: aws s3 cp --storage-class INTELLIGENT_TIERING --no-progress --recursive --acl public-read /tmp/tmp.pNYEYwMZdU s3://rust-lang-ci2/rustc-builds/84da3b428994497dbfb892a54ae48b82ce322dbb
upload: ../../../../../tmp/tmp.pNYEYwMZdU/metrics-aarch64-gnu-debug.json to s3://rust-lang-ci2/rustc-builds/84da3b428994497dbfb892a54ae48b82ce322dbb/metrics-aarch64-gnu-debug.json
upload: ../../../../../tmp/tmp.pNYEYwMZdU/cpu-aarch64-gnu-debug.csv to s3://rust-lang-ci2/rustc-builds/84da3b428994497dbfb892a54ae48b82ce322dbb/cpu-aarch64-gnu-debug.csv
cd src/ci
npm ci
python3 scripts/upload-build-metrics.py ../../build/cpu-usage.csv
shell: /usr/bin/bash --noprofile --norc -e -o pipefail {0}

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[fmease]

spurious @bors retry

[jieyouxu]

Huh, apparently the segfault I observed in rollup #136572 wasn't just one-off, it also happened here...

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 68646e9 with merge a9730c3...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: GuillaumeGomez
Pushing a9730c3 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a9730c3): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-5.5%, -0.2%]	21
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-5.5%, -0.7%]	22
All ❌✅ (primary)	-1.6%	[-5.5%, -0.2%]	21

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.4%, secondary -2.9%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.4%	[1.4%, 3.4%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.9%	[-2.9%, -2.9%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.4%	[1.4%, 3.4%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -2.5%, secondary -3.7%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-4.5%, -1.7%]	7
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.7%	[-4.6%, -2.1%]	17
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-4.5%, -1.7%]	7

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 778.801s -> 776.778s (-0.26%)
Artifact size: 328.78 MiB -> 329.01 MiB (0.07%)