Skip to content

Make match in register_res easier to read#84880

Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
jyn514:cleanup-itemkind
Jun 5, 2021
Merged

Make match in register_res easier to read#84880
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
jyn514:cleanup-itemkind

Conversation

@jyn514
Copy link
Member

@jyn514 jyn514 commented May 3, 2021

  • Don't duplicate DefKind -> ItemType handling; that's a good way to get bugs
  • Use exhaustive match
  • Add comments

This found that register_res is very wrong in at least one way: if it
registers a Res for Variant, it should also register one for Field.
But I don't know whether the one for Variant should be removed or Field
added. Maybe someone has ideas?

Found while reviewing #84176.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

rust-highfive commented May 3, 2021

r? @ollie27

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 3, 2021
@jyn514 jyn514 added T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup. labels May 3, 2021
@jyn514 jyn514 force-pushed the cleanup-itemkind branch from 3764a53 to 2e0d9aa Compare May 3, 2021 19:40
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@jyn514 jyn514 force-pushed the cleanup-itemkind branch from 2e0d9aa to b98316f Compare May 3, 2021 19:54
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@jyn514
Make match in register_res easier to read
4029a03 
- Don't duplicate DefKind -> ItemType handling; that's a good way to get bugs
- Use exhaustive match
- Add comments

This found that register_res is very wrong in at least one way: if it
registers a Res for `Variant`, it should also register one for `Field`.
But I don't know whether the one for Variant should be removed or Field
added. Maybe someone has ideas?
@jyn514 jyn514 force-pushed the cleanup-itemkind branch from b98316f to 4029a03 Compare May 3, 2021 21:01
@jyn514 jyn514 mentioned this pull request May 3, 2021
Merged
GuillaumeGomez
GuillaumeGomez reviewed May 4, 2021
View reviewed changes
src/test/rustdoc/intra-doc/field.rs
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
// @has field/index.html '//a[@href="https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/ops/range/struct.Range.html#structfield.start"]' 'start'
Copy link
Member

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez May 4, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nitpicking: generally we tend to put such checks below the inner attributes. Not a blocker though.

GuillaumeGomez
GuillaumeGomez approved these changes May 4, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Apart from the nitpick, looks good to me. r=me with or without it.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented May 4, 2021

Thanks for the review :) do you have ideas about this bit?

This found that register_res is very wrong in at least one way: if it
registers a Res for Variant, it should also register one for Field.
But I don't know whether the one for Variant should be removed or Field
added. Maybe someone has ideas?

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

GuillaumeGomez commented May 4, 2021

Fields and variants are different: a variant can represent its enum whereas a field cannot represent its struct. So it seems logical that there is res for one but not for the other.

@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented May 4, 2021

a variant can represent its enum whereas a field cannot represent its struct

What does this mean?

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

GuillaumeGomez commented May 4, 2021

I'm sorry, I'm really bad at explaining things... What I tried to say is that it's logical for variant to have Res because they are a whole type themselves. Unlike fields which don't represent the struct.

Well, I guess that explanation doesn't make any sense either... XD

@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented May 4, 2021

@GuillaumeGomez maybe this is easier to answer - can you write a test case that fails if we ignore Variant? Or that fails currently because we ignore Field?

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

GuillaumeGomez commented May 4, 2021

After re-reading, I think I misunderstood and that we should have Res for both variants and fields.

@bstrie
Copy link
Contributor

bstrie commented May 19, 2021

I'm unclear about the status of this, is it reviewed, approved, waiting for changes?

@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented May 19, 2021

@bstrie it's probably ok to approve as is, but I'd like to figure out what's going on with Field first, and ideally write a test case for it. It's unclear when this code path ever makes a difference.

@bstrie bstrie added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 19, 2021
@jyn514
Copy link
Member Author

jyn514 commented Jun 4, 2021

I won't have time to investigate this in the near future. I'll open an issue for the fishiness with Field.

@bors r=GuillaumeGomez rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 4, 2021

📌 Commit 4029a03 has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

@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-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jun 4, 2021
@JohnTitor JohnTitor mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2021
Merged
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 4, 2021
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#86006 - JohnTitor:rollup-97iuoi3, r=JohnTitor
704934d 
Rollup of 10 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#83653 (Remove unused code from `rustc_data_structures::sync`)
 - rust-lang#84466 (rustdoc: Remove `PrimitiveType::{to_url_str, as_str}`)
 - rust-lang#84880 (Make match in `register_res` easier to read)
 - rust-lang#84942 (rustdoc: link to stable/beta docs consistently in documentation)
 - rust-lang#85853 (Warn against boxed DST in `improper_ctypes_definitions` lint)
 - rust-lang#85939 (Fix suggestion for removing &mut from &mut macro!().)
 - rust-lang#85966 (wasm: Make simd types passed via indirection again)
 - rust-lang#85979 (don't suggest unsized indirection in where-clauses)
 - rust-lang#85983 (Update to semver 1.0.3)
 - rust-lang#85988 (Note that `ninja = false` goes under `[llvm]`)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 3a8bb38 into rust-lang:master Jun 5, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.54.0 milestone Jun 5, 2021
@jyn514 jyn514 deleted the cleanup-itemkind branch June 5, 2021 01:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez approved these changes

Assignees

@ollie27 ollie27

Labels

C-cleanup Category: PRs that clean code up or issues documenting cleanup. 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

Milestone

1.54.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@jyn514 @rust-highfive @rust-log-analyzer @GuillaumeGomez @bstrie @bors @ollie27 @rustbot