Add new rustdoc `broken_footnote` lint by GuillaumeGomez · Pull Request #137803 · rust-lang/rust

GuillaumeGomez · 2025-02-28T15:12:14Z

I think in this case, instead of spawning unpportable_markdown, we should instead notify that this footnote reference doesn't have an associated definition.

r? @notriddle

notriddle · 2025-02-28T15:57:59Z

Fixes #137740.

I think you might have misunderstood the issue description. "The term of what is meant by anchors is borrowed from" a description of this style of anchor links. It doesn't say anything about footnotes.

/// Consider [panics](std::alloc::GlobalAllocator#Panics) on allocation.
// ^^^^^^^ anchor

GuillaumeGomez · 2025-02-28T16:57:18Z

I indeed misunderstood and went on a completely different path. Although I still think that this PR is useful. I plan to send a follow-up PR for unused footnote references as well. ^^'

I removed the "fixes" mention though.

notriddle · 2025-02-28T19:01:25Z

This lint seems too noisy to belong in core.

Review case F1 of #121659 (comment), where [^a-zA-Z0-9] is syntactically valid as a footnote reference, but not intended to be parsed as one. Following the suggestion (to add \ to the front) makes the plain-text representation harder to read, and Rustdoc is already doing what the author wanted, so where's the problem?

If the goal of this lint is to catch typo-ed footnotes, then there should be an unused footnote definition, somewhere, that the author tried and failed to reference. Those are guaranteed to be a problem: either they typo-ed the reference, or they never intended a footnote at all (but still got one).

GuillaumeGomez · 2025-03-01T11:15:44Z

That's why we suggest to escape the [ if it was not intended. Like I said, I'm also planning to send a PR for unused footnote definitions. But even without it, I think it makes sense to warn that a footnote reference doesn't match anything and suggest to escape it if it's not meant to be a footnote.

notriddle · 2025-03-01T18:04:53Z

That's why we suggest to escape the [ if it was not intended.

Doing that makes the doc comment less plain-text (noisier).

GuillaumeGomez · 2025-03-11T13:58:55Z

After discussing with @notriddle, it was decided to move the implementation of this lint into its own file.

bors · 2025-05-07T05:04:30Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #140726) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@GuillaumeGomez

changelog: [`doc_suspicious_footnotes`]: lint for text that looks like a footnote reference but has no definition This is an alternative to rust-lang/rust#137803, meant to address the concerns about false positives. This lint only fires when the apparent footnote reference has a name that's made from pure ASCII digits. This choice is justified by running lintcheck on the top 200 crates, plus the clippy default set: 1. [I ran lintcheck](https://gist.github.com/notriddle/59072476c9c1fd569fee421270dad665) with a modded version of this lint that didn't check for digits only. It produced a false positive warning on a line in mdbook that had a regex, and no true positives at all. 2. [I also ran lintcheck](https://gist.github.com/notriddle/74eb8c9e1939b9f5c5549bf1d4fa238a) with a custom lint that fired on any valid footnote reference with a non-ascii-digit name. `cargo` uses one in its job_queue module, and that's all it found. cc @GuillaumeGomez

GuillaumeGomez · 2026-03-12T09:49:47Z

Fixed merge conflict. Ping @notriddle

GuillaumeGomez · 2026-03-12T12:56:57Z

And updated to new APIs.

GuillaumeGomez · 2026-03-12T14:28:06Z

I was sure x.py fmt was adding missing newlines at the end of files. Oh well, added it.

notriddle · 2026-03-12T16:13:40Z

Still missing a few:
//! [^*] special characters can appear within footnote references //~^ ERROR: no footnote definition matching this footnote //! //! [^**] //! //! [^**]: not an error //! //! [^\_] so can escaped characters //~^ ERROR: no footnote definition matching this footnote

Ah good point, adding them as well.

rustbot · 2026-08-12T12:56:16Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

GuillaumeGomez · 2026-08-12T12:56:59Z

Cherry-picked your commit @notriddle (wow, it's been 5 months already...). Once CI pass, I'll r+ the PR.

GuillaumeGomez · 2026-08-12T14:39:38Z

@bors r=notriddle

rust-bors · 2026-08-12T14:39:41Z

📌 Commit 48e4a7b has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@notriddle

…notriddle Add new rustdoc `broken_footnote` lint I think in this case, instead of spawning `unpportable_markdown`, we should instead notify that this footnote reference doesn't have an associated definition. r? @notriddle

…uwer Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - #137803 (Add new rustdoc `broken_footnote` lint) - #160975 (Remove target argument from get_proc_macros) - #160861 (rustc_parse: suggest removing semicolon before `if` block) - #160990 (Remove old cfg parser which is now dead code) Failed merges: - #137858 (Add new `unused_footnote_definition` rustdoc lint)

JonathanBrouwer · 2026-08-12T18:44:47Z

💔 I suspect this PR failed tests as part of a rollup
@bors r-

After fixing the problem, consider running a try job for the failed job before re-approving.

Link to failure: #160992 (comment)

rust-bors · 2026-08-12T18:44:55Z

This pull request was unapproved.

This PR was contained in a rollup (#160992), which was unapproved.

View changes since this unapproval

@notriddle

…, r=notriddle Add new `unused_footnote_definition` rustdoc lint Follow-up of rust-lang#137803 (where the two first commits come from). It adds a new lint which checks for unused footnote definitions. r? @notriddle

@notriddle

…, r=notriddle Add new `unused_footnote_definition` rustdoc lint Follow-up of rust-lang#137803 (where the two first commits come from). It adds a new lint which checks for unused footnote definitions. r? @notriddle

@notriddle

…, r=notriddle Add new `unused_footnote_definition` rustdoc lint Follow-up of rust-lang#137803 (where the two first commits come from). It adds a new lint which checks for unused footnote definitions. r? @notriddle

rust-bors · 2026-08-13T10:25:04Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #161014) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

@notriddle

Rollup merge of #137858 - GuillaumeGomez:unused_footnote_def, r=notriddle Add new `unused_footnote_definition` rustdoc lint Follow-up of #137803 (where the two first commits come from). It adds a new lint which checks for unused footnote definitions. r? @notriddle

GuillaumeGomez · 2026-08-24T13:41:16Z

This PR was actually merged with #137858 which got merged. Closing then.

rustbot assigned notriddle Feb 28, 2025

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Feb 28, 2025

GuillaumeGomez mentioned this pull request Mar 1, 2025
Add new unused_footnote_definition rustdoc lint #137858
Merged

GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the broken-footnote branch from c9627d0 to 9976037Compare March 11, 2025 13:58

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the broken-footnote branch from 9976037 to 8f7f71cCompare March 11, 2025 14:12

notriddle mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2025
doc_suspicious_footnotes: lint text that looks like a footnote rust-lang/rust-clippy#14708
Merged

GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the broken-footnote branch from 8f7f71c to 10dd66aCompare March 12, 2026 09:49

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the broken-footnote branch from 10dd66a to 5e69d80Compare March 12, 2026 10:14

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the broken-footnote branch 3 times, most recently from 5deff4b to e7b4bc8Compare March 12, 2026 11:38

This comment has been minimized.
Sign in to view

GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the broken-footnote branch from d827e02 to 10323f8Compare March 12, 2026 14:27

notriddle reviewed Mar 12, 2026
View reviewed changes

GuillaumeGomezand others added 7 commits August 12, 2026 14:48

Add new unused_footnote_definition rustdoc lint
54e3862

Add ui test for new unused_footnote_definition rustdoc lint
9fb3e62

Improve description of new rustdoc lints
76b1d70

Remove outdated comment
6d79d87

Correctly handle "escaped footnotes"
c3a10df

Improve suggestion for broken_footnote lint
587689a

Fix buggy footnote parser in broken-footnote link
48e4a7b

GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the broken-footnote branch from c470ca8 to 48e4a7bCompare August 12, 2026 12:56

rust-borsBot added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 12, 2026

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2026
Rollup of 4 pull requests #160992
Closed

rust-borsBot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Aug 12, 2026

GuillaumeGomez closed this Aug 24, 2026

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Aug 24, 2026

GuillaumeGomez deleted the broken-footnote branch August 24, 2026 13:41

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez commented Feb 28, 2025• edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

notriddle commented Feb 28, 2025

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomez commented Feb 28, 2025

Uh oh!

notriddle commented Feb 28, 2025

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomez commented Mar 1, 2025

Uh oh!

notriddle commented Mar 1, 2025

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomez commented Mar 11, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

bors commented May 7, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

GuillaumeGomez commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

GuillaumeGomez commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

GuillaumeGomez commented Mar 12, 2026

Uh oh!

notriddleMar 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomezMar 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomez commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomez commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-borsBot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

JonathanBrouwer commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-borsBot commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-borsBot commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

GuillaumeGomez commented Aug 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

GuillaumeGomez commented Feb 28, 2025•
edited by rustbot
Loading