new lint: trait_method_marked_deprecated
#1098
Conversation
Frank-III
force-pushed
the
trait_method_marked_deprecated
branch
from
6393141 to
ea19ac8
Compare
| method_name: name @output @tag | ||
| deprecated @filter(op: "=", value: ["$true"]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs a public_api_eligible check both here and on the baseline side.
Otherwise, this lint will flag trait methods that were #[doc(hidden)] in the baseline, which is incorrect since they weren't public API.
Relevant docs here:
https://github.com/obi1kenobi/trustfall-rustdoc-adapter/blob/rustdoc-v39/src/rustdoc_schema.graphql#L91-L110
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding test cases for #[doc(hidden)] on the trait and on the trait method, to make sure that non-public-API items don't get reported by this lint.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you! was looking into the sealed thing, and got stuck, why it is so complex 😭. I would continue and finish trait associated types and trait associated constants then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why it is so complex
The best answer is that it's a system that grew organically, and was not designed intentionally as a whole. There's no concept of a "sealed" or "public API sealed" trait in rustc or the Rust language proper — those things are ones that someone merely noticed are possible within the current language boundaries, and they've proven useful to the community so they remain in use.
If they were designed intentionally, we'd have e.g. a #[sealed] attribute on traits instead. This may yet happen! The process for #[non_exhaustive] was similar: there was a common workaround for it that was broadly used in the community, and eventually enough momentum built for a language-level fix that became the #[non_exhaustive] attribute.
I'm reasonably confident that sooner or later, we'll have something along these lines for trait sealing as well. But first, someone has to analyze the present situation, figure out all the edge cases, and write it up in a form that gets the community interested. In this case, that someone was me :)
part of #57