-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Use missing_docs lint on tuple fields as well #88688
Use missing_docs lint on tuple fields as well #88688
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
4bf2145
to
a13426c
Compare
a13426c
to
d6f07f8
Compare
This is not a rustdoc change, you need to talk to @rust-lang/lang. |
I'm against this change, documenting tuple variant fids is not something that is in the general norm of rust. This lint would create a ton of warnings across projects that would most likely silence it. It's actually worth considering if rustdoc coverage should be counting tuple field docs , to me this is similar to documenting private stuff: good to do, but not expected. (Lints are typically a compiler team thing fwiw) |
Perfect, to be honest I wasn't super happy about this change, I rather change how we count in the |
…lds-count, r=Manishearth Rustdoc coverage fields count Follow-up of rust-lang#88688. Instead of requiring enum tuple variant fields and tuple struct fields to be documented, we count them if they are documented, otherwise we don't include them in the count. r? `@Manishearth`
Since we count them in the rustdoc
show-coverage
option, I thought it would be logical to throw the error here as well.What do you think @rust-lang/rustdoc ?
r? @Manishearth