publish-toolstate: show more context on HTTP error
The default display for HTTPError in Python does not include the request body. For GitHub API, the body includes more details about the error (like rate limiting). This could help diagnosing errors like this: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75815#issuecomment-678798158
Fix typo in documentation of i32 wrapping_abs()
Hi!
I was reading through the std library docs and noticed that this section flowed a bit oddly; comparing it against https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.wrapping_div and https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i32.html#method.wrapping_neg , I noticed that those two pieces of documentation used a semicolon here.
This is my first time submitting a PR to this repo. Am I doing this right? Are tiny typo-fix PRs like this worth submitting, or are they not a good use of time?
Thank you!
Switch to intra-doc links in `std::macros`
Part of #75080.
---
* Switch to intra-doc links in `std::macros`
* Fix typo in module docs
* Link to `std::io::stderr` instead of `std::io::Stderr` to match the
link text
* Link to `std::io::stdout`
---
@rustbot modify labels: A-intra-doc-links T-doc T-rustdoc
- Add a new `prim@` disambiguator, since both modules and primitives are
in the same namespace
- Refactor `report_ambiguity` into a closure
Additionally, I noticed that rustdoc would previously allow
`[struct@char]` if `char` resolved to a primitive (not if it had a
DefId). I fixed that and added a test case.
Fix intra-doc links for associated items
@Manishearth and I found that links of the following sort are broken:
```rust
$ cat str_from.rs
/// [`String::from`]
pub fn foo() {}
$ rustdoc str_from.rs
warning: `[String::from]` cannot be resolved, ignoring it.
--> str_from.rs:4:6
|
4 | /// [`String::from`]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot be resolved, ignoring
```
It turns out this is because the current implementation only looks at inherent impls (`impl Bar {}`) and traits _for the item being documented_. Note that this is not the same as the item being _linked_ to. So this code would work:
```rust
pub trait T1 {
fn method();
}
pub struct S;
impl T1 for S {
/// [S::method] on method
fn method() {}
}
```
but putting the documentation on `trait T1` would not.
~~I realized that writing it up that my fix is only partially correct: It removes the inherent impls code when it should instead remove the `trait_item` code.~~ Fixed.
Additionally, I discovered while writing this there is some ambiguity: you could have multiple methods with the same name, but for different traits:
```rust
pub trait T1 {
fn method();
}
pub trait T2 {
fn method();
}
/// See [S::method]
pub struct S;
```
Rustdoc should give an ambiguity error here, but since there is currently no way to disambiguate the traits (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74563) it does not (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74489#issuecomment-673878404).
There is a _third_ ambiguity that pops up: What if the trait is generic and is implemented multiple times with different generic parameters? In this case, my fix does not do very well: it thinks there is only one trait instantiated and links to that trait:
```
/// [`String::from`] -- this resolves to https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/alloc/string/struct.String.html#method.from
pub fn foo() {}
```
However, every `From` implementation has a method called `from`! So the browser picks a random one. This is not the desired behavior, but it's not clear how to avoid it.
To be consistent with the rest of intra-doc links, this only resolves associated items from traits that are in scope. This required changes to rustc_resolve to work cross-crate; the relevant commits are prefixed with `resolve: `. As a bonus, considering only traits in scope is slightly faster. To avoid re-calculating the traits over and over, rustdoc uses a cache to store the traits in scope for a given module.
Provide better spans for the match arm without tail expression
Resolves#75418.
Applied the same logic in the `if`-`else` type mismatch case.
r? @estebank
Document that slice refers to any pointer type to a sequence
I was recently confused about the way slices are represented in memory. The necessary information was not available in the std-docs directly, but was a mix of different material from the reference and book.
This PR should clear up the definition of slices a bit more in the documentation. Especially the fact that the term slice refers to the pointer/reference type, e.g. `&[T]`, and not `[T]`.
It also documents that slice pointers are twice the size of pointers to `Sized` types, as this concept may be unfamiliar to users coming from other languages that do not have the concept of "fat pointers" (especially C/C++).
I've documented why this was important to me and my findings in [this blog post](https://codecrash.me/understanding-rust-slices).
r? @lcnr
stabilize ptr_offset_from
This stabilizes ptr::offset_from, and closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079. It also removes the deprecated `wrapping_offset_from`. This function was deprecated 19 days ago and was never stable; given an FCP of 10 days and some waiting time until FCP starts, that leaves at least a month between deprecation and removal which I think is fine for a nightly-only API.
Regarding the open questions in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41079:
* Should offset_from abort instead of panic on ZSTs? -- As far as I know, there is no precedent for such aborts. We could, however, declare this UB. Given that the size is always known statically and the check thus rather cheap, UB seems excessive.
* Should there be more methods like this with different restrictions (to allow nuw/nsw, perhaps) or that return usize (like how isize-taking offset is more conveniently done with usize-taking add these days)? -- No reason to block stabilization on that, we can always add such methods later.
Also nominating the lang team because this exposes an intrinsic.
The stabilized method is best described [by its doc-comment](56d4b2d69a/src/libcore/ptr/const_ptr.rs (L227)). The documentation forgot to mention the requirement that both pointers must "have the same provenance", aka "be derived from pointers to the same allocation", which I am adding in this PR. This is a precondition that [Miri already implements](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=a3b9d0a07a01321f5202cd99e9613480) and that, should LLVM ever obtain a `psub` operation to subtract pointers, will likely be required for that operation (following the semantics in [this paper](https://people.mpi-sws.org/~jung/twinsem/twinsem.pdf)).
