[rustdoc] Allow to link to current crate #137935
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hum... Making it non-breaking seems simpler. I'll add it only if there are no other item matching.
| .or_else(|| { | ||
| if self.cx.tcx.crate_name(LOCAL_CRATE).as_str() == path_str { | ||
| Some(Res::from_def_id(self.cx.tcx, CRATE_DEF_ID.to_def_id())) | ||
| } else { | ||
| None | ||
| } | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it. This runs in the context of the crate that's being documented, not in the context of the item having its names resolved, which seems like it would behave wrong when cross-crate inlining happens.
Shouldn't the doc_link_resolutions (in rustc_resolve) query be updated instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hum, fair enough. Gonna move it there then.
|
Moved it into |
|
|
||
| //@ has 'bar/index.html' | ||
| //@ has - '//*[@class="docblock"]//a[@href="index.html"]' 'bar' | ||
| //! [`bar`] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Test case for [crate@bar]?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no crate disambiguator. Can be added in a follow-up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, an integration test for cross-crate inlining?
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
current-crate-intra-doc
branch
from
5a0eb4f to
ad8a77a
Compare
|
Added the test for inlined crate link. |
Can you not use |
|
There is no |
|
I meant using: //! [`bar`](crate)
which already works. It would be surprising if you could refer to the current crate using its name in intra-doc links when you can't in code. |
|
Oh I see. Well it does, but it's also nice to be able to link to the current crate with its name too. |
|
I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to support linking to the current crate by its name, since Rust can't #![crate_name = "tarte"]
use crate as myself; // works
use tarte as myself; //~ERROR no external crate `tarte` |
|
@rfcbot fcp close |
|
Team member @notriddle has proposed to close this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
|
It's also possible for users to do this crate-wide if they want with |
Part of #137857.
Seems surprising that we cannot link to the current crate, so this PR adds it.
r? @notriddle