-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Don't print "private fields" on empty tuple structs #118192
Conversation
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @jsha (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As for the changes, this looks correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for fixing this!
This PR is almost good to go, I only have some suggestions for the added test: I'd turn the “absence checks” (@!has
) into “presence checks” (@has
) since they're more robust and future-proof. Furthermore, I wonder if the tests Hidden
and Private
are useful since we already have tests/rustdoc/private-fields-tuple-struct.rs
for example.
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ | |||
// @has issue_118180_empty_tuple_struct/enum.Enum.html | |||
pub enum Enum { | |||
// @!has - '//*[@id="variant.Empty"]//h3' '/* private fields */' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
// @!has - '//*[@id="variant.Empty"]//h3' '/* private fields */' | |
// @has - '//*[@id="variant.Empty"]//h3' 'Empty()' |
} | ||
|
||
// @has issue_118180_empty_tuple_struct/struct.Empty.html | ||
// @!has - '//pre/code' '/* private fields */' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
// @!has - '//pre/code' '/* private fields */' | |
// @has - '//pre/code' 'Empty()' |
Thanks for the feedback! Presence rather than absence: sure. I think both are more future-proof in their own way, but if you think this way is better, fine with me. As for the tests, I figured these would be edge cases that might plausibly be affected by a potential fix. But you are right — any such issues should be caught by the rest of the suite. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! One last thing, could you maybe squash the commits? Since there aren't that many changes?
|
Test for presence rather than absence Remove redundant tests Issues in those parts will likely be caught by other parts of the test suite.
b0f2721
to
a21d771
Compare
Sure. I think this is how I do that, right? ( |
@bors r+ rollup |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (a4a5c97): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 676.283s -> 675.669s (-0.09%) |
Closes #118180.
While working on this I also noticed that empty struct variants are also rendered rather awkwardly. I'll make another issue for that, since I don't know what the correct rendering would be.