[GuillaumeGomez]

View all comments

Fixes #159109.

This PR makes the (private) reexport work like the public ones when the --document-private-items option is used. I still differentiate between imports (use) and reexports (pub(...) use) in this PR as I don't think we should display imports.

r? @Urgau

[GuillaumeGomez]

Fun fact: this test was added in 2016 in #37773. :)

View changes since the review

[Urgau]

I was wondering if this was a breaking change, but our documentation clearly states:

--document-private-items includes all non-public items in the generated documentation except for #[doc(hidden)] items.

as such, this seems clearly like a bug fix.

[GuillaumeGomez]

So now, all use in the crate module are visible.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@rustbot ready

[GuillaumeGomez]

Applied suggestions.

[Urgau]

LGTM, r=me with the comment fixed

View changes since this review

[Urgau]

This comment needs updating, it still talks about checking vis_span.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Ah indeed, removing that part.

[rust-timer]

Note

This PR was benchmarked as part of triage of its containing rollup: triage URL.

Finished benchmarking commit (2c386ff): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:

Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR.
This might be an actual regression, but it can also be just noise.

Next Steps:

• If the regression was expected or you think it can be justified,
  please write a comment with sufficient written justification, and add
  @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged to it, to mark the regression as triaged.
• If you think that you know of a way to resolve the regression, try to create
  a new PR with a fix for the regression.
• If you do not understand the regression or you think that it is just noise,
  you can ask the @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance working group for help (members of this group
  were already notified of this PR).

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.9%	[0.1%, 7.9%]	19
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	27.3%	[0.1%, 189.6%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[0.1%, 7.9%]	19

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 0.7%, secondary 29.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.3%	[0.5%, 4.8%]	9
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	29.6%	[20.3%, 38.9%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.1%	[-1.5%, -0.5%]	3
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-1.5%, 4.8%]	12

Cycles

Results (primary 0.9%, secondary 63.7%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.2%	[0.4%, 4.9%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	63.7%	[2.3%, 161.8%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-0.8%, -0.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.9%	[-0.8%, 4.9%]	13

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Artifact size: 405.87 MiB -> 405.94 MiB (0.02%)

[GuillaumeGomez]

Taking a look at the performance impact.

[obi1kenobi]

Good news / bad news situation.

This PR fixes the capability gap pointed out in (part of) #111338 and means that cargo-semver-checks will finally be able to fully resolve the public API even in the presence of shadowing due to private use items. Yay! This is a 3.5 year old limitation 🎉

Unfortunately, this is also a material externally-observable change in behavior and it broke our test suite 😅 It probably should have bumped the JSON format version.

Don't worry about bumping it now, I'll find some way to work around it. But in general, I think it'd be better to bump more often than strictly necessary, than to miss a bump. The cargo-semver-checks test suites are quite deep (or else the project would permanently be in debugging hell), but at the same time we've had ~45 format version bumps since I started the project so the operational steps for dealing with a version bump are very well exercised.

Anyway — thanks for building this, I'm excited to have it and even more excited to be able to close the book on a 3.5yr old shortcoming in cargo-semver-checks! The format version thing isn't a huge deal as a one-off, I just wanted to bring it up as an observation and experience report.