Generate doc comment on benchmark runner in criterion_group macro #774
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
If there are any suggestions for what the generated comment should read, I'm happy to change that. The comment won't in general be visible, of course, but will show up when a user expands the macro. The current comment simply reads "The function which runs the benchmarks." |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
tl;dr: One-liner to add a doc comment to the generated benchmark runner fn from the
criterion_group!macro.The
rustclintmissing-docsis triggered when using thecriterion_group!macro. For users who specify the lint on theirrustccommand line, this can generate a warning that they are unable to quiet without an inner allow attribute (e.g. using#![allow(missing-docs)]at the head of their source file). This will surpress any other missing docs in their own code, which may be unexpected behavior.I don't see any real downsides to this change, but I'm brand new to the criterion.rs codebase. Comments, discussion, and suggestions very welcome on this proposed change. For instance, I have no idea if this change warrants an entry in the changelog. Cheers!