Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

rustdoc-json: Add test for keywords with --document-private-items #125503

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 24, 2024

Conversation

aDotInTheVoid
Copy link
Member

Turns out this does work as-expected. I was worried that the rustdoc's clean would produce a ItemKind::KeywordItem for the module, and loose the module itself. But turns out we get this right.

Prompted by this discussion on zulip

r? @GuillaumeGomez

@aDotInTheVoid aDotInTheVoid added the A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc label May 24, 2024
@rustbot rustbot added A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend 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 May 24, 2024
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Nice! Do you think it'd be worth adding documentation about this in rustdoc-types?

@aDotInTheVoid
Copy link
Member Author

I don't think so. We already document the .attrs field, and I dont think we should document all the perma-unstable attributes that rustdoc_internals has there.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Then sounds all good to me, thanks! r=me once CI pass

@aDotInTheVoid
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=GuillaumeGomez rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 24, 2024

📌 Commit 3ee8498 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors 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 May 24, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 24, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#125467 (Only suppress binop error in favor of semicolon suggestion if we're in an assignment statement)
 - rust-lang#125483 (compiler: validate.rs belongs next to what it validates)
 - rust-lang#125485 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-with-output-dir-option` to `rmake.rs`)
 - rust-lang#125497 (Fix some SIMD intrinsics documentation)
 - rust-lang#125501 (Resolve anon const's parent predicates to direct parent instead of opaque's parent)
 - rust-lang#125503 (rustdoc-json: Add test for keywords with `--document-private-items`)
 - rust-lang#125519 (tag more stuff with `WG-trait-system-refactor`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit f1eef38 into rust-lang:master May 24, 2024
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.80.0 milestone May 24, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 24, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#125503 - aDotInTheVoid:rdj-keyword-attr, r=GuillaumeGomez

rustdoc-json: Add test for keywords with `--document-private-items`

Turns out this does work as-expected. I was worried that the rustdoc's clean would produce a `ItemKind::KeywordItem` for the module, and loose the module itself. But turns out we get this right.

Prompted by [this discussion on zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/Where.20to.20find.20keyword.20entries.20in.20JSON.20rustdoc)

r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
@aDotInTheVoid aDotInTheVoid deleted the rdj-keyword-attr branch May 24, 2024 23:24
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants