Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add missing_docs lint to the rustdoc lint group - #77364
Conversation
jyn514
commented
Sep 30, 2020
I don't think I'm the right person to review this. r? @ollie27 |
ollie27
commented
Sep 30, 2020
When the |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Sep 30, 2020
The lint is emitted by rustdoc too. :) |
ollie27
commented
Oct 5, 2020
Yes, but it's also emitted by rustc and the
My main question is what would the |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Oct 6, 2020
Literally what it's supposed to be: lints emitted by rustdoc (even if they are also emitted by/from rustc). |
jyn514
commented
Oct 6, 2020
Rustdoc also emits lints about unknown and renamed lints (#75903). But I think it's clear those shouldn't be part of the rustdoc group. |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Oct 6, 2020
Good point. Then let me add more precision: "lints emitted by rustdoc (even if they are also emitted by/from rustc) and linked to documentation." |
bors
commented
Oct 7, 2020
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #77119) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels: |
camelid
commented
Oct 23, 2020
@GuillaumeGomez Could you resolve the merge conflicts? |
jyn514
commented
Oct 23, 2020
@camelid there's no point resolving the merge conflicts until the rustdoc team decides this is a change they want to accept (and IMO this should have feedback from T-compiler too). |
camelid
commented
Oct 23, 2020
Sorry, drive-by triaging 😄 |
jyn514
commented
Nov 4, 2020
The discussion has kind of stalled out ... there are two viewpoints of what
I don't think we can do anything here until we decide which of those |
nikomatsakis
commented
Nov 4, 2020
My intuition is that users will expect I think that the argument in favor of a more limited definition is something like this:
In other words, maybe it's surprising the |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Dec 26, 2020
I'd prefer to have it running in rustdoc directly indeed. :) I can make a PR for that if you want? |
camelid
commented
Dec 26, 2020
I figured, but my point is that that's an implementation detail and not that relevant to the user.
The one thing is that then you won't be able to run |
jyn514
commented
Dec 26, 2020
That's exactly why I don't consider this an implementation detail.
I think this should have input from T-lang, I don't think it's really rustdoc's decision to make. |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Dec 26, 2020
My proposition still stands. :p |
LeSeulArtichaut
commented
Dec 27, 2020
But do people run rustdoc in CI, for example? |
camelid
commented
Dec 27, 2020
Yes, but this would mean that you can't run |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Dec 27, 2020
I wanted |
Make rustdoc lints a tool lint instead of built-in - Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` (and similar for other rustdoc lints; I don't expect any others to be used frequently, though). - Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors - Register lints even when running doctests - Move lint machinery into a separate file - Add `declare_rustdoc_lint!` macro Unblocks rust-lang#80300, rust-lang#79816, rust-lang#80965. Makes the strangeness in rust-lang#77364 more apparent to the end user (note that `missing_docs` is *not* moved to rustdoc in this PR). ## Current status This is waiting on FCP: rust-lang#80527 (comment)
Make rustdoc lints a tool lint instead of built-in - Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` (and similar for other rustdoc lints; I don't expect any others to be used frequently, though). - Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors - Register lints even when running doctests - Move lint machinery into a separate file - Add `declare_rustdoc_lint!` macro Unblocks rust-lang#80300, rust-lang#79816, rust-lang#80965. Makes the strangeness in rust-lang#77364 more apparent to the end user (note that `missing_docs` is *not* moved to rustdoc in this PR). Closesrust-lang#78786. ## Current status This is blocked on rust-lang#82620 (see rust-lang#80527 (comment))
Make rustdoc lints a tool lint instead of built-in - Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` (and similar for other rustdoc lints; I don't expect any others to be used frequently, though). - Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors - Register lints even when running doctests - Move lint machinery into a separate file - Add `declare_rustdoc_lint!` macro Unblocks rust-lang#80300, rust-lang#79816, rust-lang#80965. Makes the strangeness in rust-lang#77364 more apparent to the end user (note that `missing_docs` is *not* moved to rustdoc in this PR). Closesrust-lang#78786. ## Current status This is blocked on rust-lang#82620 (see rust-lang#80527 (comment))
Make rustdoc lints a tool lint instead of built-in - Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` (and similar for other rustdoc lints; I don't expect any others to be used frequently, though). - Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors - Register lints even when running doctests - Move lint machinery into a separate file - Add `declare_rustdoc_lint!` macro Unblocks rust-lang#80300, rust-lang#79816, rust-lang#80965. Makes the strangeness in rust-lang#77364 more apparent to the end user (note that `missing_docs` is *not* moved to rustdoc in this PR). Closesrust-lang#78786. ## Current status This is blocked on rust-lang#82620 (see rust-lang#80527 (comment))
Make rustdoc lints a tool lint instead of built-in - Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` (and similar for other rustdoc lints; I don't expect any others to be used frequently, though). - Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors - Register lints even when running doctests - Move lint machinery into a separate file - Add `declare_rustdoc_lint!` macro Unblocks rust-lang#80300, rust-lang#79816, rust-lang#80965. Makes the strangeness in rust-lang#77364 more apparent to the end user (note that `missing_docs` is *not* moved to rustdoc in this PR). Closesrust-lang#78786. ## Current status This is blocked on rust-lang#82620 (see rust-lang#80527 (comment))
Make rustdoc lints a tool lint instead of built-in - Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` (and similar for other rustdoc lints; I don't expect any others to be used frequently, though). - Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors - Register lints even when running doctests - Move lint machinery into a separate file - Add `declare_rustdoc_lint!` macro Unblocks rust-lang#80300, rust-lang#79816, rust-lang#80965. Makes the strangeness in rust-lang#77364 more apparent to the end user (note that `missing_docs` is *not* moved to rustdoc in this PR). Closesrust-lang#78786. ## Current status This is blocked on rust-lang#82620 (see rust-lang#80527 (comment))
Make rustdoc lints a tool lint instead of built-in - Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` (and similar for other rustdoc lints; I don't expect any others to be used frequently, though). - Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors - Register lints even when running doctests - Move lint machinery into a separate file - Add `declare_rustdoc_lint!` macro Unblocks rust-lang#80300, rust-lang#79816, rust-lang#80965. Makes the strangeness in rust-lang#77364 more apparent to the end user (note that `missing_docs` is *not* moved to rustdoc in this PR). Closesrust-lang#78786. ## Current status This is blocked on rust-lang#82620 (see rust-lang#80527 (comment))
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Apr 28, 2021
Rustdoc lints are now declared in rustdoc so no need for this PR anymore. |
Just realized that the
rustdoclint group didn't have themissing_docslint inside.r? @jyn514