Only check the compiler and standard library before documenting them #88675
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jyn514
added
T-bootstrap
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Great improvement, not only for documenting |
|
Seems to work as intended for Output (click to expand)Actually, wait… why does |
That is for all build kinds. The path only determines which build step to perform. In this case |
|
Alright, looks like Edit: Hadn't seen the other answer linking #44293. Anyway, “independent” stands. |
|
Seems safe enough (will either work or not, hopefully). @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 04db063 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
jyn514
changed the title
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2021
Don't build the compiler and standard library before documenting them Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to run the build. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` cc `@steffahn`
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2021
Don't build the compiler and standard library before documenting them Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to run the build. r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum`` cc ``@steffahn``
This was referenced Sep 11, 2021
Manishearth
added a commit
to Manishearth/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 12, 2021
Don't build the compiler and standard library before documenting them Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to run the build. r? ```@Mark-Simulacrum``` cc ```@steffahn```
|
@bors r- I think that's this one |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@Manishearth yup, it was this one - should be fixed now. |
jyn514
added
S-waiting-on-review
camelid
added a commit
to camelid/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 12, 2021
Only dylib and rlib candidates were included in the error. I think the reason is that at the time this error was originally implemented, rmeta crate sources were represented different from dylib and rlib sources. I wrote up more detailed analysis in [this comment][1]. The new version of the code is also a bit easier to read and should be more robust to future changes since it uses `CrateSources::paths()`. [1]: rust-lang#88675 (comment)
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2021
Include rmeta candidates in "multiple matching crates" error Only dylib and rlib candidates were included in the error. I think the reason is that at the time this error was originally implemented, rmeta crate sources were represented different from dylib and rlib sources. I wrote up more detailed analysis in [this comment][1]. The new version of the code is also a bit easier to read and should be more robust to future changes since it uses `CrateSources::paths()`. I also changed the code to sort the candidates to make the output deterministic; added full stderr tests for the error; and added a long error code explanation. [1]: rust-lang#88675 (comment) cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` `@jyn514`
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum rollup=never |
|
📌 Commit 29a6be5 has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit 29a6be5 with merge eb9edf5dc596d7951e8537d38e2019d540545905... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
Mark-Simulacrum
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
Here's the new error: So it looks like the rmeta and rlib sources of Also, is it expected that |
apiraino
added
the
T-infra
|
I don't know how to fix this, sorry. |
|
If someone wants to pick this up, the first step would be to find a way to reproduce the CI failure locally, it's not clear to me how x.py is being invoked. |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2022
Only check the compiler and standard library before documenting them (take 2) Trying rust-lang#88675 again.
|
Finally got this working in #95450 :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and
especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to
run the build.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum cc @steffahn