mirror
/
rustc-dev-guide
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix typo

This commit is contained in:
León Orell Valerian Liehr 2025-06-07 18:58:41 +02:00
parent 99626a308d
commit 3eb40c40b7
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: D17A07215F68E713
1 changed files with 4 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
src/rustdoc-internals/rustdoc-test-suite.md
View File

@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ Here are some details that are relevant to this test suite specifically:
* While you can use both `//@ compile-flags` and `//@ doc-flags` to pass flags to `rustdoc`, * While you can use both `//@ compile-flags` and `//@ doc-flags` to pass flags to `rustdoc`,
prefer to user the latter to show intent. The former is meant for `rustc`. prefer to user the latter to show intent. The former is meant for `rustc`.
* Add `//@ build-aux-docs` to the test file that has auxiliary crates to not only compile the * Add `//@ build-aux-docs` to the test file that has auxiliary crates to not only compile the
auxiliaries with `rustc` but to also document them with `rustdoc` auxiliaries with `rustc` but to also document them with `rustdoc`.
## Caveats ## Caveats
@ -161,8 +161,9 @@ It's not unusual that the *shape* of the generated HTML document tree changes fr
This includes for example renamings of CSS classes. This includes for example renamings of CSS classes.
Whenever that happens, *positive* checks will either continue to match the intended element / Whenever that happens, *positive* checks will either continue to match the intended element /
attribute / text if their XPath expression is general / loose enough and thus test the correct thing attribute / text (if their XPath expression is general / loose enough) and
or they won't in which case they would fail forcing the author of the change tolook at them. thus continue to test the correct thing or they won't in which case they would fail thereby
forcing the author of the change to look at them.
Compare that to *negative* checks (e.g., `//@ !has PATH XPATH PATTERN`) which won't fail if their Compare that to *negative* checks (e.g., `//@ !has PATH XPATH PATTERN`) which won't fail if their
XPath expression "no longer" matches. The author who changed "the shape" thus won't get notified and XPath expression "no longer" matches. The author who changed "the shape" thus won't get notified and