rustfmt: run it on doc examples too

[dianpopa]

Ran rustfmt from the nightly build with format_code_in_doc_comments enabled.

Signed-off-by: Diana Popa [email protected]

Reason for This PR

Format the doc code examples -> better looking Firecracker

Description of Changes

[Author TODO: add description of changes.]

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

PR Checklist

[Author TODO: Meet these criteria. Where there are two options, keep one.]
[Reviewer TODO: Verify that these criteria are met. Request changes if not]

• All commits in this PR are signed (git commit -s).
• Either this PR is linked to an issue, or, the reason for this PR is
  clearly provided.
• The description of changes is clear and encompassing.
• Either no docs need to be updated as part of this PR, or, the required
  doc changes are included in this PR. Docs in scope are all *.md files
  located either in the repository root, or in the docs/ directory.
• Either no code has been touched, or, code-level documentation for touched
  code is included in this PR.
• Either no API changes are included in this PR, or, the API changes are
  reflected in firecracker/swagger.yaml.
• Either the changes in this PR have no user impact, or, the changes in
  this PR have user impact and have been added to the CHANGELOG.md file.

[andreeaflorescu]

I noticed that the indentation is a bit wierd for all the code examples where examples are built in functions. Can we either uncomment the function names or remove the functions? I did some research when I started working on rust-vmm, and most of the crates out there don't use functions that return results in examples without calling them. I assume that the reason is the code examples can fail silently with this approach. I think it is easier to keep the documentation up to date if the doc tests fail.

[dianpopa]

I noticed that the indentation is a bit wierd for all the code examples where examples are built in functions. Can we either uncomment the function names or remove the functions? I did some research when I started working on rust-vmm, and most of the crates out there don't use functions that return results in examples without calling them. I assume that the reason is the code examples can fail silently with this approach. I think it is easier to keep the documentation up to date if the doc tests fail.

I did this. I do not understand what you mean by weird indentation. I just ran cargo fmt --all in order to format the doc tests, I did not do anything manual (and not planning to do). I just thought it would not hurt to have this in our codebase so that when that feature is stable we have less files to update.

[andreeaflorescu]

Here is an example where the lines have a weird indentation:

    /// # use memory_model::{GuestAddress, GuestMemory, MemoryMapping};
    /// # fn test_write_u64() -> Result<(), ()> {
    /// #   let start_addr = GuestAddress(0x1000);
    /// #   let mut gm = GuestMemory::new(&vec![(start_addr, 0x400)]).map_err(|_| ())?;
    /// let buf = &mut [0u8; 16];
    /// let res = gm
    ///     .read_slice_at_addr(buf, GuestAddress(0x200))
    ///     .map_err(|_| ())?;
    /// assert_eq!(16, res);
    /// Ok(())
    /// # }

Even though the line let buf = &mut [0u8; 16] is part of the function test_write_u64, only the first two lines of the function actually use the 2 spaces indentation. I assume that this is because the function declaration is actually commented out.

[dianpopa]

Here is an example where the lines have a weird indentation:

    /// # use memory_model::{GuestAddress, GuestMemory, MemoryMapping};
    /// # fn test_write_u64() -> Result<(), ()> {
    /// #   let start_addr = GuestAddress(0x1000);
    /// #   let mut gm = GuestMemory::new(&vec![(start_addr, 0x400)]).map_err(|_| ())?;
    /// let buf = &mut [0u8; 16];
    /// let res = gm
    ///     .read_slice_at_addr(buf, GuestAddress(0x200))
    ///     .map_err(|_| ())?;
    /// assert_eq!(16, res);
    /// Ok(())
    /// # }

Even though the line let buf = &mut [0u8; 16] is part of the function test_write_u64, only the first two lines of the function actually use the 2 spaces indentation. I assume that this is because the function declaration is actually commented out.

I fixed those in another commit. Take a look.