-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
rustdoc: Replace FakeDefId
with new ItemId
type
#86644
Merged
bors
merged 7 commits into
rust-lang:master
from
Stupremee:replace-fakedefids-with-itemid
Jul 6, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
43e1cdb
rustdoc: Replace `FakeDefId` with new `ItemId` type
Stupremee acd4dc2
rustdoc: Rename `expect_real` to `expect_def_id`, remove `Item::is_fake`
Stupremee 45d3dae
rustdoc: Store DefId's in ItemId on heap for decreasing Item's size
Stupremee 97c82d8
Revert "rustdoc: Store DefId's in ItemId on heap for decreasing Item'…
Stupremee 4b1027a
rustdoc: Convert new ItemId's to real Json Ids
Stupremee 21424d2
rustdoc: Add `PrimitiveType` to `ItemId::Primitive`
Stupremee a89912c
rustdoc: Use `impl_id` and `for_` DefId's for Blanket item id
Stupremee File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I was unclear: you don't need
for_
at all now, you can reconstruct it from the impl_id alone withtcx.impl_trait_ref(impl_def_id).unwrap().self_ty()
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I do need it, because apparently, only the implementation id is not enough to be unique (?????????).
When I only had the
impl_id
, I got a panic when documenting std thatassert_eq
on these two failed:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
... @CraftSpider why are those separate? I would only expect there to be one item per blanket impl, generating a separate item for every type it could apply to seems both inefficient and not particularly useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no clue, I'd expect the same. I'll look into the code tomorrow.
First guess: the equivalent of HTML's 'implements' showing blankets that apply to that type
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we wait with this PR until you found a solution? We can also merge this now and make a follow up PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, yeah this seems fine in the meantime. r=me once you fix the conflict.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree with Josh, this isn't a blocking concern.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright. @CraftSpider will you open the follow-up PR with the fix for not emitting duplicate blanket implementations and the fixed
ItemId
?