[rustdoc] Do not take doc(cfg()) into account when filtering doctests - #159014
[rustdoc] Do not take doc(cfg()) into account when filtering doctests#159014GuillaumeGomez wants to merge 5 commits into
doc(cfg()) into account when filtering doctests#159014Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
And now it fails because we (doc) inlined some functions. Fixing that then. :) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
f5059c8 to
062cfea
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
062cfea to
1d5692c
Compare
|
Fixed CI \o/ |
1d5692c to
a0bf3c9
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Reverted changes I made to |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Ah, new stuff gets added. |
a0bf3c9 to
59a72c3
Compare
|
cc @Amanieu, @folkertdev, @sayantn |
59a72c3 to
885af7e
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
885af7e to
21e8051
Compare
|
Seems like CI is happy now. |
|
Setting a new reviewer as fmease seems busy. r? @Urgau |
…uwer Rollup of 21 pull requests Successful merges: - #159844 (Subtree cg_gcc sync (2026-07-24)) - #159326 (Deny multiple EII impls on a single item) - #159535 (Optimize slice::contains for bytewise types) - #159595 (Promote loongarch32-unknown-none* to Tier 2) - #160007 (allow `-Ldependency` search paths for panic runtimes) - #160320 (point at trait definition when it is used as a derive macro) - #160369 (When suggesting method names, prefer *exact* doc aliases over similar names) - #160406 (`DepKind` cleanups) - #160424 (Use `thread::available_parallelism` as the default limit for backend parallelism) - #159014 ([rustdoc] Do not take `doc(cfg())` into account when filtering doctests) - #159303 (Fix ICE for direct inline const generic defaults) - #159977 (Add regression test for bool indexing codegen) - #160165 (reject `...` without pattern post-expansion) - #160295 (Fix rustdoc ICE when checking if a generic arg can be elided) - #160305 (Linkify C-SKY targets in `platform-support.md`) - #160314 (fix borrowck ICE for consts with fn pointer type) - #160322 (ElaborateBoxDeref: remove unnecessary projection) - #160338 (Add regression test for supertrait associated type normalization through dyn) - #160340 (Add regression test for unused_parens on contract clauses) - #160371 (Add doc aliases for transpositions `read_exact_buf` and `read_exact_buf_at`) - #160384 (Add PR body notes for Cargo lock file maintenance)
|
💔 I suspect this PR failed tests as part of a rollup After fixing the problem, consider running a try job for the failed job before re-approving. Link to failure: #160437 (comment) Probably caused by this PR? |
|
This pull request was unapproved. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
[rustdoc] Do not take `doc(cfg())` into account when filtering doctests try-job: x86_64-msvc-1
|
💔 Test for e0c307b failed: CI. Failed job:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Let's try again. @bors try jobs=x86_64-msvc-1,pr-check-2 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
[rustdoc] Do not take `doc(cfg())` into account when filtering doctests try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: pr-check-2
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
c154b1e to
c3f66e2
Compare
|
@bors try jobs=x86_64-msvc-1,pr-check-2 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
[rustdoc] Do not take `doc(cfg())` into account when filtering doctests try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: pr-check-2
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test for 38cc34c failed: CI. Failed job:
|
View all comments
Part of #147033.
Because it was using the
extract_cfg_from_attrscommon function, it was taking into account thedoc(cfg())attributes the same as if they were acfg.I didn't mark this PR as "fix" because I didn't handle the case of the doctest not being marked as ignored because I'm not sure if we should revisit the fact that we ignore these doctests or if we should just mark them as ignored (because of
target_feature(enable = "...")).Setting @fmease as reviewer as they are likely the only one with context about this issue. 😆
r? @fmease