Handle remapped paths correctly when generating "Source" links #150172
+41
−6
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
rustbot
added
A-run-make
Member
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Member
Author
Nevermind, the fix was incomplete. It works fine now. Details |
Urgau
force-pushed
the
rustdoc-remap-fixes
branch
from
dfdb113 to
811c241
Compare
Member
|
@Urgau told me they would be able to update the PR until tomorrow and told me to push if I wanted it to be merged sooner. So considering it's a big regression, I pushed a commit (to not appear as co-author of a previous one considering it's such a small change...). Will need to nominate it for beta-backport once merged as well. In any case. @bors r+ rollup |
Collaborator
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JonathanBrouwer
added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2025
…aumeGomez Handle remapped paths correctly when generating "Source" links Fixes rust-lang#150100. This PR fixes a regression introduced by [rust-lang#149709](rust-lang#149709), I was overzealous in my changes (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149709/changes#diff-e1cf7ef2fb411d24980cd4cbea1e867cc36029e9496e1ceca64cfb6a0e3510f6) and accidentally changed the behavior of `rustdoc` in the presence of remapped, to simply reject them instead of handling them. With this PR remapped paths are handled correctly, in a similar way as it was before. ~~I added a run-make test to make sure we don't regress it again, a simple `rustdoc` test in not sufficient as `rustdoc` is not called on the auxiliary crate. It's not pretty but it works.~~ rust-lang#150172 (comment) rustdoc doesn't have any handling for `--remap-path-scope`, so I used the `MACRO` scope (it was already used [elsewhere](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/b889870082dd0b0e3594bbfbebb4545d54710829/src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs#L154). cf. https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/source.20links.20missing.20for.20nightly.20std.20docs
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2025
…aumeGomez Handle remapped paths correctly when generating "Source" links Fixes rust-lang#150100. This PR fixes a regression introduced by [rust-lang#149709](rust-lang#149709), I was overzealous in my changes (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149709/changes#diff-e1cf7ef2fb411d24980cd4cbea1e867cc36029e9496e1ceca64cfb6a0e3510f6) and accidentally changed the behavior of `rustdoc` in the presence of remapped, to simply reject them instead of handling them. With this PR remapped paths are handled correctly, in a similar way as it was before. ~~I added a run-make test to make sure we don't regress it again, a simple `rustdoc` test in not sufficient as `rustdoc` is not called on the auxiliary crate. It's not pretty but it works.~~ rust-lang#150172 (comment) rustdoc doesn't have any handling for `--remap-path-scope`, so I used the `MACRO` scope (it was already used [elsewhere](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/b889870082dd0b0e3594bbfbebb4545d54710829/src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs#L154). cf. https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/source.20links.20missing.20for.20nightly.20std.20docs
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2025
…aumeGomez Handle remapped paths correctly when generating "Source" links Fixes rust-lang#150100. This PR fixes a regression introduced by [rust-lang#149709](rust-lang#149709), I was overzealous in my changes (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149709/changes#diff-e1cf7ef2fb411d24980cd4cbea1e867cc36029e9496e1ceca64cfb6a0e3510f6) and accidentally changed the behavior of `rustdoc` in the presence of remapped, to simply reject them instead of handling them. With this PR remapped paths are handled correctly, in a similar way as it was before. ~~I added a run-make test to make sure we don't regress it again, a simple `rustdoc` test in not sufficient as `rustdoc` is not called on the auxiliary crate. It's not pretty but it works.~~ rust-lang#150172 (comment) rustdoc doesn't have any handling for `--remap-path-scope`, so I used the `MACRO` scope (it was already used [elsewhere](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/b889870082dd0b0e3594bbfbebb4545d54710829/src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs#L154). cf. https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/source.20links.20missing.20for.20nightly.20std.20docs
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2025
Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - #146747 (rustc_codegen_llvm: Tidying of `update_target_reliable_float_cfg`) - #148499 (Nvptx: Use llbc as default linker) - #148991 (miri genmc: fix exit() handling) - #150172 (Handle remapped paths correctly when generating "Source" links) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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.
Fixes #150100.
This PR fixes a regression introduced by #149709, I was overzealous in my changes (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149709/changes#diff-e1cf7ef2fb411d24980cd4cbea1e867cc36029e9496e1ceca64cfb6a0e3510f6) and accidentally changed the behavior of
rustdocin the presence of remapped, to simply reject them instead of handling them.With this PR remapped paths are handled correctly, in a similar way as it was before.
I added a run-make test to make sure we don't regress it again, a simple#150172 (comment)rustdoctest in not sufficient asrustdocis not called on the auxiliary crate. It's not pretty but it works.rustdoc doesn't have any handling for
--remap-path-scope, so I used theMACROscope (it was already used elsewhere.cf. https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/source.20links.20missing.20for.20nightly.20std.20docs
r? @GuillaumeGomez