Improve suggestions for broken intra-doc links
~~Depends on #74489 and should not be merged before that PR.~~ Merged 🎉
~~Depends on #75916 and should not be merged before.~~ Merged
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75305.
This does a lot of different things 😆.
- Add `PerNS::into_iter()` so I didn't have to keep rewriting hacks around it. Also add `PerNS::iter()` for consistency. Let me know if this should be `impl IntoIterator` instead.
- Make `ResolutionFailure` an enum instead of a unit variant. This was most of the changes: everywhere that said `ErrorKind::ResolutionFailure` now has to say _why_ the link failed to resolve.
- Store the resolution in case of an anchor failure. Previously this was implemented as variants on `AnchorFailure` which was prone to typos and had inconsistent output compared to the rest of the diagnostics.
- Turn some `Err`ors into unwrap() or panic()s, because they're rustdoc bugs and not user error. These have comments as to why they're bugs (in particular this would have caught #76073 as a bug a while ago).
- If an item is not in scope at all, say the first segment in the path that failed to resolve
- If an item exists but not in the current namespaces, say that and suggests linking to that namespace.
- If there is a partial resolution for an item (part of the segments resolved, but not all of them), say the partial resolution and why the following segment didn't resolve.
- Add the `DefId` of associated items to `kind_side_channel` so it can be used for diagnostics (tl;dr of the hack: the rest of rustdoc expects the id of the item, but for diagnostics we need the associated item).
- No longer suggests escaping the brackets for every link that failed to resolve; this was pretty obnoxious. Now it only suggests `\[ \]` if no segment resolved and there is no `::` in the link.
- Add `Suggestion`, which says _what_ to prefix the link with, not just 'prefix with the item kind'.
Places where this is currently buggy:
<details><summary>All outdated</summary>
~~1. When the link has the wrong namespace:~~ Now fixed.
<details>
```rust
/// [type@S::h]
impl S {
pub fn h() {}
}
/// [type@T::g]
pub trait T {
fn g() {}
}
```
```
error: unresolved link to `T::g`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:53:6
|
53 | /// [type@T::g]
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: this link partially resolves to the trait `T`,
= note: `T` has no field, variant, or associated item named `g`
error: unresolved link to `S::h`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:48:6
|
48 | /// [type@S::h]
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: this link partially resolves to the struct `S`,
= note: `S` has no field, variant, or associated item named `h`
```
Instead it should suggest changing the disambiguator, the way it currently does for macros:
```
error: unresolved link to `S`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:38:6
|
38 | /// [S!]
| ^^ help: to link to the unit struct, use its disambiguator: `value@S`
|
= note: this link resolves to the unit struct `S`, which is not in the macro namespace
```
</details>
2. ~~Associated items for values. It says that the value isn't in scope; instead it should say that values can't have associated items.~~ Fixed.
<details>
```
error: unresolved link to `f::A`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:14:6
|
14 | /// [f::A]
| ^^^^
|
= note: no item named `f` is in scope
= help: to escape `[` and `]` characters, add '\' before them like `\[` or `\]`
```
This is _mostly_ fixed, it now says
```rust
warning: unresolved link to `f::A`
--> /home/joshua/test-rustdoc/f.rs:1:6
|
1 | /// [f::A]
| ^^^^
|
= note: this link partially resolves to the function `f`
= note: `f` is a function, not a module
```
'function, not a module' seems awfully terse when what I actually mean is '`::` isn't allowed here', though.
</details>
It looks a lot nicer now, it says
```
error: unresolved link to `f::A`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:13:6
|
13 | /// [f::A]
| ^^^^
|
= note: `f` is a function, not a module or type, and cannot have associated items
```
3. ~~I'm also not very happy with the second note for this error:~~
<details>
```
error: unresolved link to `S::A`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:19:6
|
19 | /// [S::A]
| ^^^^
|
= note: this link partially resolves to the struct `S`,
= note: `S` has no field, variant, or associated item named `A`
```
but I'm not sure how better to word it.
I ended up going with 'no `A` in `S`' to match `rustc_resolve` but that seems terse as well.
</details>
This now says
```
error: unresolved link to `S::A`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:17:6
|
17 | /// [S::A]
| ^^^^
|
= note: the struct `S` has no field or associated item named `A`
```
which I think looks pretty good :)
4. This is minor, but it would be nice to say that `path` wasn't found instead of the full thing:
```
error: unresolved link to `path::to::nonexistent::module`
--> /home/joshua/rustc/src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-link-errors.rs:8:6
|
8 | /// [path::to::nonexistent::module]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
It will now look at most 3 paths up (so it reports `path::to` as not in scope), but it doesn't work with arbitrarily many paths.
</details>
~~I recommend only reviewing the last few commits - the first 7 are all from #74489.~~ Rebased so that only the relevant commits are shown. Let me know if I should squash the history some more.
r? `@estebank`
0f5c769513