Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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: Only special case struct fields for intra-doc links, not enum variants #92075

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 29, 2021
Merged

rustdoc: Only special case struct fields for intra-doc links, not enum variants #92075

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
636d6a3
Only special case struct fields for intra-doc links, not enum variants
jyn514 Dec 18, 2021
09104ad
Explain why struct fields are handled by assoc. item code
camelid Dec 28, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
41 changes: 25 additions & 16 deletions src/librustdoc/passes/collect_intra_doc_links.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -684,27 +684,36 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> LinkCollector<'a, 'tcx> {
if ns != Namespace::ValueNS {
return None;
}
debug!("looking for variants or fields named {} for {:?}", item_name, did);
debug!("looking for fields named {} for {:?}", item_name, did);
// FIXME: this doesn't really belong in `associated_item` (maybe `variant_field` is better?)
// NOTE: it's different from variant_field because it resolves fields and variants,
// NOTE: it's different from variant_field because it only resolves struct fields,
// not variant fields (2 path segments, not 3).
//
// We need to handle struct (and union) fields in this code because
// syntactically their paths are identical to associated item paths:
// `module::Type::field` and `module::Type::Assoc`.
//
// On the other hand, variant fields can't be mistaken for associated
// items because they look like this: `module::Type::Variant::field`.
//
// Variants themselves don't need to be handled here, even though
// they also look like associated items (`module::Type::Variant`),
// because they are real Rust syntax (unlike the intra-doc links
// field syntax) and are handled by the compiler's resolver.
let def = match tcx.type_of(did).kind() {
ty::Adt(def, _) => def,
ty::Adt(def, _) if !def.is_enum() => def,
_ => return None,
};
let field = if def.is_enum() {
def.all_fields().find(|item| item.ident.name == item_name)
} else {
def.non_enum_variant().fields.iter().find(|item| item.ident.name == item_name)
}?;
let kind = if def.is_enum() { DefKind::Variant } else { DefKind::Field };
let fragment = if def.is_enum() {
// FIXME: how can the field be a variant?
UrlFragment::Variant(field.ident.name)
} else {
UrlFragment::StructField(field.ident.name)
};
Some((root_res, fragment, Some((kind, field.did))))
let field = def
.non_enum_variant()
.fields
.iter()
.find(|item| item.ident.name == item_name)?;
Some((
root_res,
UrlFragment::StructField(field.ident.name),
Some((DefKind::Field, field.did)),
))
}
Res::Def(DefKind::Trait, did) => tcx
.associated_items(did)
Expand Down