-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 493
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Documentation no longer lists required features #2717
Comments
Probably #2671. I think it no longer adds namespace features to the list of features. EDIT: specifically - let mut tokens = format!(r#"`\"{}\"`"#, to_feature(self.namespace));
+ let mut tokens = String::new(); |
Yep the docs no longer explicitly include the feature for the enclosing module. This caused a huge amount of redundant doc comments and markup. A bit less intuitive for sure, but a tradeoff I think is worthwhile until I find a long-term replacement for rustdoc... |
|
That's fair - I tend to hunt around the GitHub repo rather than use the published docs. |
Unfortunately, github's search capabilities are foiled by the size of the windows-rs repo. |
Think we should revert this change, this is markedly worse UX for no apparent benefit. |
The only reason I care about the required features is to copy them into the After the change, things are far less convenient. It's not entirely unworkable as long as only the containing module's feature is required. When more features are required the documentation starts to feel very hostile (just go through the number of steps needed to get Someone who knows their way around this crate may merely be inconvenienced. To anyone new, this may be reason enough to look into alternatives. Reverting this change would be very much appreciated. |
I wonder if it would help to remove the explicit need for things like |
Yes, I'm looking for ways to reduce the feature complexity as simply reverting this change doesn't really solve the problem. Continuing to use rustdoc in this way is just not sustainable. |
I'm not objecting to that. I'm uncomfortable with having the documentation reflect a potentially simpler future world before it exists. Until we're there, the documentation should reflect the current state, with feature complexity and all. |
Unfortunately, formatting is not that great. |
You also need to combine |
Sure, but somebody has to support that "current state" until some "future world" where |
cc @GuillaumeGomez Improving the formatting seems actionable? |
That does look very bad indeed. Can you open an issue on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust please? |
Done. |
To be more exact: rust-lang/rust#118615 |
That's understood, and ideally, it shouldn't be. Realistically, though, the The output generated from the
Just to let you know, I'm not asking you to change things or take on responsibility for someone else's shortcomings. I'm just a user providing feedback on what works and what doesn't. |
Honestly this is making it extremely hard to use the library at the moment. Is there a way the documentation which reflects the required features for the current version be made available somehow please? e.g. https://microsoft.github.io/windows-docs-rs/doc/windows/Win32/System/Registry/fn.RegEnumKeyW.html specifies that only Win32_Foundation is required when Win32_System_Registry is also required. I'm not sure where to find this information for the current v0.52.0 release. |
@fgimian Working on it, sorry for the delay. Here's a temporary tool you can use to unblock: https://riverar.github.io/4f76cc1e-88ae-41d3-906e-3591c67d2366/ We're working on standing this up next to the official docs shortly. |
Thank you so so much for this mate, really appreciate it!! 😄 |
I published the docs for |
Summary
Starting with version 0.52.0, the documentation published here no longer lists all/some required features.
For example:
OutputDebugStringW
doesn't list any featuresGetMessageW
doesn't list the full set of featuresIt looks like the requirements for the containing module have dropped off.
Crate manifest
No response
Crate code
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: