rustdoc: Tracking issue for --no-run

[gilescope]

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.

Steps

• Add the flag (added --no-run option for rustdoc #83857)
• Update libtest not to say "ok" for tests which aren't run (added --no-run option for rustdoc #83857 (comment))
• Fix the flag to actually work (rustdoc --test --preserve-doctests --no-run produces empty non-executable files #88110)
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide) - rustdoc's documentation lives in src/doc/rustdoc.
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)

Unresolved Questions

• Is --no-run the right name?

Implementation history

• Initial implementation (added --no-run option for rustdoc #83857)

original issue text

The cargo issue here rust-lang/cargo#6424 points out that we don't have a tracking issue on the librustdoc side for how we can make doc examples compile when we run cargo check --all-targets or cargo build --all-targets. By hook or by crook it would be great to remove this surprising edge case.

Also probably even more surprising cargo test --no-run also doesn't compile the doc tests.

Maybe we need a cargo test --sligtly-run-doctests?

[jyn514]

Also probably even more surprising cargo test --no-run also doesn't compile the doc tests.

This is unrelated to rustdoc. Cargo can do this with rustdoc --persist-doctests - although I think that might still run the tests? Hmm, that's worth looking into.

[jyn514]

Oh look, this was already added but without a tracking issue 🤦 I'm going to repurpose this as the tracking issue if you don't mind. #83857

[gilescope]

Please do :-) - Great sluthing btw. Ok so for nightly the cargo issue is unblocked and we should be able to now try and do this.

[jsgf]

--no-run doesn't seem to be working as I'd expect: #88110

[tgross35]

Are there any blockers to stabilizing this, aside from the naming choice?

For what it's worth on that, something like --build-only could be a better fit if it still produces binaries but just doesn't run