Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Deprecate several flags in rustdoc - #44138
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Aug 28, 2017
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Manishearth
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r=me. Probs should use the colorful one over eprintln
steveklabnik
commented
Aug 28, 2017
What's "the colorful one"? |
7497e31 to
36f52d9CompareManishearth
commented
Aug 28, 2017
nvm, that's only available from within rustc and nontrivial to use without a |
36f52d9 to
4cd5314CompareGuillaumeGomez
commented
Aug 29, 2017
@bors: r=Manishearth |
bors
commented
Aug 29, 2017
📌 Commit 4cd5314 has been approved by |
frewsxcv
commented
Aug 29, 2017
@bors rollup |
…r=Manishearth Deprecate several flags in rustdoc Part of rust-lang#44136 cc @rust-lang/dev-tools @rust-lang/docs This is a very basic PR to start deprecating some flags; `rustdoc` doesn't really have fancy output options like `rustc` does, so I went with `eprintln!`. Happy to change it if people feel that's not appropriate. Also, I have no idea if we can or should write tests here, so I didn't try. If someone feels strongly about it, then let's do it, but given that the only outcome here is a side effect...
…r=Manishearth Deprecate several flags in rustdoc Part of rust-lang#44136 cc @rust-lang/dev-tools @rust-lang/docs This is a very basic PR to start deprecating some flags; `rustdoc` doesn't really have fancy output options like `rustc` does, so I went with `eprintln!`. Happy to change it if people feel that's not appropriate. Also, I have no idea if we can or should write tests here, so I didn't try. If someone feels strongly about it, then let's do it, but given that the only outcome here is a side effect...
frewsxcv
commented
Aug 29, 2017
alexcrichton
commented
Aug 30, 2017
Hm right now this just prints out "WARNING: this flag is considered deprecated", could it also print the flag as well? |
In rust-lang/rust#44138 we are adding deprecations, and so it breaks these tests.
e85918f to
6438b9bComparerelax rustdoc tests This was asserting on the output directly, rather than just what it contains. In rust-lang/rust#44138 we are adding deprecations, and so it breaks these tests.
steveklabnik
commented
Aug 30, 2017
Great, so this works with my Cargo PR. @alexcrichton , what's the process for updating Cargo these days? It looks like it depends on a released version, I'm not sure what the protocol is for that.
Also happy to do that as well, alongside dropping the testing changes to the submodules. |
alexcrichton
commented
Aug 30, 2017
Oh you can just update the cargo submodule whenever on the master branch of rust, no worries! |
6438b9b to
377907cComparesteveklabnik
commented
Aug 30, 2017
🤘 |
steveklabnik
commented
Aug 30, 2017
@alexcrichtonhttps://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/rust/jobs/270119195#L772 what's the right way to resolve this? change it to 0.23? |
alexcrichton
commented
Aug 30, 2017
Probably rebase on top of #44154 and wait for that to land I think? |
QuietMisdreavus
commented
Sep 21, 2017
I'm also remembering #43949 (comment) where it didn't work for dev-tools in the past. |
Okay well, sorry rfcbot i'm done fighting with you :) ping the @rust-lang/dev-tools team for signoffs; here's some manual ticky boxes for you: Primary sign-off here is " |
killercup
commented
Sep 23, 2017
LGTM @klabnikatron reviewed |
alexcrichton
commented
Sep 28, 2017
@steveklabnik loos like the last remaining box here is @nrc whom I believe is on parental leave right now, although I doubt he'd object to this :) |
michaelwoerister
commented
Oct 2, 2017
We looked at this during dev-tools triage. As @alexcrichton says, I think this is good to go, @steveklabnik! |
kennytm
commented
Oct 15, 2017
Ping again @steveklabnik 🙂. I think the teams' decisions are "it is good to go". The remaining item is to get it tested, right? |
steveklabnik
commented
Oct 16, 2017
Sorry for the delay here, will get on this tomorrow! |
Part of rust-lang#44136 Upgrades cargo due to rust-lang/cargo#4451
e5eafce to
0b31319Compare0b31319 to
045ce18Comparesteveklabnik
commented
Oct 17, 2017
Okay; we don't have a great way to test the output here, but on @QuietMisdreavus 's suggestion, I've changed a few of the rustdoc tests to use the new flag. That gives us about as much coverage as the old flags did. |
QuietMisdreavus
commented
Oct 17, 2017
*drumroll*
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Oct 17, 2017
📌 Commit 045ce18 has been approved by |
…r=QuietMisdreavus Deprecate several flags in rustdoc Part of rust-lang#44136 cc @rust-lang/dev-tools @rust-lang/docs This is a very basic PR to start deprecating some flags; `rustdoc` doesn't really have fancy output options like `rustc` does, so I went with `eprintln!`. Happy to change it if people feel that's not appropriate. Also, I have no idea if we can or should write tests here, so I didn't try. If someone feels strongly about it, then let's do it, but given that the only outcome here is a side effect...
…=GuillaumeGomez rustdoc: deprecate `#![doc(passes, plugins, no_default_passes)]` Closesrust-lang#48164 Blocked on rust-lang#50541 - this includes those changes, which were necessary to create the UI test cc rust-lang#44136 Turns out, there were special attributes to mess with rustdoc passes and plugins! Who knew! Since we deprecated the CLI flags for this functionality, it makes sense that we do the same for the attributes. This PR also introduces a `#![doc(document_private_items)]` attribute, to match the `--document-private-items` flag introduced in rust-lang#44138 when the passes/plugins flags were deprecated. I haven't done a search to see whether these attributes are being used at all, but if the flags were any indication, i don't expect to see any users of these.
Part of #44136
cc @rust-lang/dev-tools @rust-lang/docs
This is a very basic PR to start deprecating some flags;
rustdocdoesn't really have fancy output options likerustcdoes, so I went witheprintln!. Happy to change it if people feel that's not appropriate.Also, I have no idea if we can or should write tests here, so I didn't try. If someone feels strongly about it, then let's do it, but given that the only outcome here is a side effect...