Skip to content
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

rustdoc: Return a String from collapsed_doc_value, not an Option #92078

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

jyn514
Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 commented Dec 18, 2021

This has almost no effect in practice, since most places were using unwrap_or_default,
and the rest were doing checks that should have been checking for an empty string.

The only change in behavior is that the JSON backend no longer distinguishes
"undocumented" and "documented with the empty string". This doesn't seem like a particularly useful distinction,
but I can add it back for that code only if you think it's important.

Builds on #92077. cc #91072 (comment)

cc @CraftSpider @HeroicKatora
r? @camelid

@jyn514 jyn514 added C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 18, 2021
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

rustdoc-json-types is a public (although nightly-only) API. Consider changing src/librustdoc/json/conversions.rs instead; otherwise, make sure you update format_version.

cc @CraftSpider,@aDotInTheVoid

Some changes occurred in clean/types.rs.

cc @camelid

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Dec 18, 2021
@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented Dec 18, 2021

cc @GuillaumeGomez since you said in #91072 (comment) you thought the distinction was useful, although I'm not quite sure why ... IMO the new explicit checks are more clear.

@jyn514 jyn514 changed the title Return a String from collapsed_doc_value, not an Option rustdoc: Return a String from collapsed_doc_value, not an Option Dec 18, 2021
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2021
rustdoc: Write doc-comments directly instead of using FromIterator

The FromIterator impl made the code much harder to understand. The types
don't make sense until you realize there's a custom FromIterator impl.

This is the first commit from rust-lang#91305; since `@camelid` wrote it originally I don't feel bad unilaterally approving it.

r? `@ghost`
`@bors` r+

Note that this will conflict with rust-lang#92078.
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

It's because of how the code is written: you can forget to check that a string is new but you can't forget to check if an Option is Some.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented Dec 18, 2021

@GuillaumeGomez right, but often you don't need to check if it's empty or not. I encourage you to look at the diff: very few places actually keep the check and those that do only keep it as a small optimization.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

I agree with you on that but the problem is not more the majority but for the minority. It's not a hard blocker for me, but still something that needs to be considered. I relied on the compiler to avoid that whereas you rely on the developer. It's a paradigm shift.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented Dec 18, 2021

@GuillaumeGomez if it helps, another motivation for this was making collapsed_doc_value more consistent with doc_value: right now collapsed* treats it as "no lines" but doc_value" treats it as "no text".

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Leet's just say I'm not convinced but you seem to be sure so like I said: I'll remain neutral.

@camelid camelid added S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Dec 18, 2021
if let Some(doc) = attrs.collapsed_doc_value() {
// `doc_value()` doesn't combine sugared/raw doc attributes, this will combine them for us.
let docs = attrs.collapsed_doc_value();
if !docs.is_empty() {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we sure this slight behavior change here and elsewhere doesn't matter? Before, this checked for if there were no DocFragments; now, it checks if the collapsed docs is an empty string.

I think it's probably "more correct" now, but I just wanted to double-check.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you look at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c7476adc38bc9348398afcf24117d7d48e7ba9f1/src/librustdoc/html/markdown.rs#L732, it doesn't do anything for empty strings any way; having a check here at all is a microoptimization we could probably remove. So the change shouldn't have an impact.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But this code is looking for doctests, not rendering Markdown.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think there should be a behavior change, but there is a very slight possibility.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This if calls find_testable_code immediately below. The parser there is parsing the code for doctests.

matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 18, 2021
rustdoc: Write doc-comments directly instead of using FromIterator

The FromIterator impl made the code much harder to understand. The types
don't make sense until you realize there's a custom FromIterator impl.

This is the first commit from rust-lang#91305; since ``@camelid`` wrote it originally I don't feel bad unilaterally approving it.

r? ``@ghost``
``@bors`` r+

Note that this will conflict with rust-lang#92078.
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

/// The full markdown docstring of this item. Absent if there is no documentation at all,
/// Some("") if there is some documentation but it is empty (EG `#[doc = ""]`).
pub docs: Option<String>,
/// The full markdown docstring of this item.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The only change in behavior is that the JSON backend no longer distinguishes
"undocumented" and "documented with the empty string". This doesn't seem like a particularly useful distinction,
but I can add it back for that code only if you think it's important.

This change seems good to me, but I think this sould be added to the docs field documentation.

Also their should probably be a test for this

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure thing, done :)

This has almost no effect in practice, since most places were using `unwrap_or_default`,
and the rest were doing checks that *should* have been checking for an empty string.

The only change in behavior is that the JSON backend no longer distinguishes
"undocumented" and "documented with the empty string". This doesn't seem like a particularly useful distinction,
but I can add it back for that code only if you think it's important.
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@jyn514 jyn514 added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels Dec 20, 2021
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

This also fixes a few bugs in jsondocck and makes some of its errors easier to read.
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-12 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
   Compiling rustdoc v0.0.0 (/checkout/src/librustdoc)
error[E0432]: unresolved import `crate::clean::collapse_doc_fragments`
 --> src/librustdoc/passes/unindent_comments/tests.rs:3:5
  |
3 | use crate::clean::collapse_doc_fragments;
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ no `collapse_doc_fragments` in `clean`
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0432`.
error: could not compile `rustdoc` due to previous error



command did not execute successfully: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0/bin/cargo" "test" "--target" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "-Zbinary-dep-depinfo" "-j" "16" "--release" "--locked" "--color" "always" "--manifest-path" "/checkout/src/tools/rustdoc/Cargo.toml" "-p" "rustdoc:0.0.0" "--" "--quiet"


Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:30:56

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 21, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #92095) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@camelid camelid added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Dec 22, 2021
@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented Jan 8, 2022

ditto #92079 (comment)

@jyn514 jyn514 closed this Jan 8, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup. S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. 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.

7 participants