-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Only check the compiler and standard library before documenting them #88675
Conversation
Great improvement, not only for documenting |
Seems to work as intended for Output (click to expand)
Actually, wait… why does
|
That is for all build kinds. The path only determines which build step to perform. In this case |
Alright, looks like Edit: Hadn't seen the other answer linking #44293. Anyway, “independent” stands. |
Seems safe enough (will either work or not, hopefully). @bors r+ |
📌 Commit 04db063 has been approved by |
Don't build the compiler and standard library before documenting them Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to run the build. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` cc `@steffahn`
Don't build the compiler and standard library before documenting them Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to run the build. r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum`` cc ``@steffahn``
Don't build the compiler and standard library before documenting them Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to run the build. r? ```@Mark-Simulacrum``` cc ```@steffahn```
@bors r- I think that's this one |
@Manishearth yup, it was this one - should be fixed now. |
Only dylib and rlib candidates were included in the error. I think the reason is that at the time this error was originally implemented, rmeta crate sources were represented different from dylib and rlib sources. I wrote up more detailed analysis in [this comment][1]. The new version of the code is also a bit easier to read and should be more robust to future changes since it uses `CrateSources::paths()`. [1]: rust-lang#88675 (comment)
Include rmeta candidates in "multiple matching crates" error Only dylib and rlib candidates were included in the error. I think the reason is that at the time this error was originally implemented, rmeta crate sources were represented different from dylib and rlib sources. I wrote up more detailed analysis in [this comment][1]. The new version of the code is also a bit easier to read and should be more robust to future changes since it uses `CrateSources::paths()`. I also changed the code to sort the candidates to make the output deterministic; added full stderr tests for the error; and added a long error code explanation. [1]: rust-lang#88675 (comment) cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` `@jyn514`
@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum rollup=never |
📌 Commit 29a6be5 has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit 29a6be5 with merge eb9edf5dc596d7951e8537d38e2019d540545905... |
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
Here's the new error:
So it looks like the rmeta and rlib sources of Also, is it expected that |
I don't know how to fix this, sorry. |
If someone wants to pick this up, the first step would be to find a way to reproduce the CI failure locally, it's not clear to me how x.py is being invoked. |
Only check the compiler and standard library before documenting them (take 2) Trying rust-lang#88675 again.
Finally got this working in #95450 :) |
Rustdoc doesn't require the build artifacts to generate the docs, and
especially in the case of rustc, it greatly increases the time needed to
run the build.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum cc @steffahn