From 636d6a3eec8b7505beb18633bce1bc51835fceca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joshua Nelson Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 09:48:51 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Only special case struct fields for intra-doc links, not enum variants Variants are already handled by `resolve_str_path_error`, rustdoc doesn't need to consider them separately. --- .../passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs | 29 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs b/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs index ba355107ed6..27d8b8f2e3b 100644 --- a/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs +++ b/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs @@ -684,27 +684,24 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> LinkCollector<'a, 'tcx> { if ns != Namespace::ValueNS { return None; } - debug!("looking for variants or fields named {} for {:?}", item_name, did); + debug!("looking for fields named {} for {:?}", item_name, did); // FIXME: this doesn't really belong in `associated_item` (maybe `variant_field` is better?) - // NOTE: it's different from variant_field because it resolves fields and variants, + // NOTE: it's different from variant_field because it only resolves struct fields, // not variant fields (2 path segments, not 3). let def = match tcx.type_of(did).kind() { - ty::Adt(def, _) => def, + ty::Adt(def, _) if !def.is_enum() => def, _ => return None, }; - let field = if def.is_enum() { - def.all_fields().find(|item| item.ident.name == item_name) - } else { - def.non_enum_variant().fields.iter().find(|item| item.ident.name == item_name) - }?; - let kind = if def.is_enum() { DefKind::Variant } else { DefKind::Field }; - let fragment = if def.is_enum() { - // FIXME: how can the field be a variant? - UrlFragment::Variant(field.ident.name) - } else { - UrlFragment::StructField(field.ident.name) - }; - Some((root_res, fragment, Some((kind, field.did)))) + let field = def + .non_enum_variant() + .fields + .iter() + .find(|item| item.ident.name == item_name)?; + Some(( + root_res, + UrlFragment::StructField(field.ident.name), + Some((DefKind::Field, field.did)), + )) } Res::Def(DefKind::Trait, did) => tcx .associated_items(did) From 09104adda4603be1aa734bd32c69dfdac006aadf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Noah Lev Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 11:40:06 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Explain why struct fields are handled by assoc. item code --- src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs b/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs index 27d8b8f2e3b..10ef92e5f40 100644 --- a/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs +++ b/src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs @@ -688,6 +688,18 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> LinkCollector<'a, 'tcx> { // FIXME: this doesn't really belong in `associated_item` (maybe `variant_field` is better?) // NOTE: it's different from variant_field because it only resolves struct fields, // not variant fields (2 path segments, not 3). + // + // We need to handle struct (and union) fields in this code because + // syntactically their paths are identical to associated item paths: + // `module::Type::field` and `module::Type::Assoc`. + // + // On the other hand, variant fields can't be mistaken for associated + // items because they look like this: `module::Type::Variant::field`. + // + // Variants themselves don't need to be handled here, even though + // they also look like associated items (`module::Type::Variant`), + // because they are real Rust syntax (unlike the intra-doc links + // field syntax) and are handled by the compiler's resolver. let def = match tcx.type_of(did).kind() { ty::Adt(def, _) if !def.is_enum() => def, _ => return None,