Improve hir pretty printing #140606
Improve hir pretty printing #140606
Conversation
They don't appear to do anything -- no test output is affected -- and no other pretty-printing code looks like this.
As far as I can tell, this code is not actually reachable.
One of the boxes isn't closed, and this causes everything after it to be over-indented.
All the box open/close issues have been fixed.
rustbot
added
A-rustdoc-json
|
Some changes occurred in tests/rustdoc-json |
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#139343 (Change signature of File::try_lock and File::try_lock_shared) - rust-lang#140505 (linker: Quote symbol names in .def files) - rust-lang#140534 (PassWrapper: adapt for llvm/llvm-project@f137c3d592e96330e450a8fd63ef…) - rust-lang#140546 (Remove backtrace dep from anyhow in features status dump tool) - rust-lang#140548 (Emit user type annotations for free consts in pattern position) - rust-lang#140564 (Use present indicative tense in std::io::pipe() API docs) - rust-lang#140568 (Add regression test for rust-lang#140545) - rust-lang#140606 (Improve hir pretty printing) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rollup merge of rust-lang#140606 - nnethercote:hir-pp, r=dtolnay Improve hir pretty printing It's currently pretty bad, so a few small improvements can make a big difference. r? `@dtolnay`
|
hey @nnethercote, please don't just --bless away changes to rustdoc-json - this broke cargo semver-checks |
|
cc #137645 |
|
Sorry for the breakage. Why are there no cargo semver-checks to catch this? |
|
it's OK. @aDotInTheVoid is going to change the ping message to make it more clear this is a public API. |
It was caught by the test suites of cargo-semver-checks and its components. Their test suites are fairly extensive (a decent bit larger than the rustdoc JSON tests) and at one point there was discussion about running them in rustdoc's own CI to catch rustdoc JSON bugs. At the time that seemed like a lot of work for not much gain, but perhaps it's an idea to revisit. I opened #140689 to track recovering the original behavior, unless we decide to roll forward instead and just bump the format version number. That would be a bit inconvenient, but I can deal with it if it's preferable. |
It's currently pretty bad, so a few small improvements can make a big difference.
r? @dtolnay