Skip to content

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Follow-up of #88688.

Instead of requiring enum tuple variant fields and tuple struct fields to be documented, we count them if they are documented, otherwise we don't include them in the count.

r? @Manishearth

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez added the T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Sep 7, 2021
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Sep 7, 2021
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the rustdoc-coverage-fields-count branch from e6e43ef to 44dd251 Compare September 7, 2021 13:27
Copy link
Member

@Manishearth Manishearth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand why we need an additional hashmap: is there a reason we cannot look at the parent of the node and check what kind of field it is?

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

I feel very stupid not doing that. Updating.

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the rustdoc-coverage-fields-count branch from 44dd251 to 0474ec2 Compare September 9, 2021 19:09
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Rewrote using the direct parent through hir map this time.

Copy link
Member

@Manishearth Manishearth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

r=me

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez force-pushed the rustdoc-coverage-fields-count branch from 0474ec2 to eda4cfb Compare September 10, 2021 08:49
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@bors: r=Manishearth

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 10, 2021

📌 Commit eda4cfb has been approved by Manishearth

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 10, 2021

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

@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 Sep 10, 2021
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2021
…arth

Rollup of 15 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#85200 (Ignore derived Clone and Debug implementations during dead code analysis)
 - rust-lang#86165 (Add proc_macro::Span::{before, after}.)
 - rust-lang#87088 (Fix stray notes when the source code is not available)
 - rust-lang#87441 (Emit suggestion when passing byte literal to format macro)
 - rust-lang#88546 (Emit proper errors when on missing closure braces)
 - rust-lang#88578 (fix(rustc): suggest `items` be borrowed in `for i in items[x..]`)
 - rust-lang#88632 (Fix issues with Markdown summary options)
 - rust-lang#88639 (rustdoc: Fix ICE with `doc(hidden)` on tuple variant fields)
 - rust-lang#88667 (Tweak `write_fmt` doc.)
 - rust-lang#88720 (Rustdoc coverage fields count)
 - rust-lang#88732 (RustWrapper: avoid deleted unclear attribute methods)
 - rust-lang#88742 (Fix table in docblocks)
 - rust-lang#88776 (Workaround blink/chromium grid layout limitation of 1000 rows)
 - rust-lang#88807 (Fix typo in docs for iterators)
 - rust-lang#88812 (Fix typo `option` -> `options`.)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit e0e3d85 into rust-lang:master Sep 11, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.57.0 milestone Sep 11, 2021
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the rustdoc-coverage-fields-count branch September 11, 2021 09:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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.

6 participants