rustdoc: render visibility on associated types

[wackbyte]

This should only affect inherent associated types (#8995).

[rustbot]

r? @jsha

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[fmease]

Thanks for catching and fixing this! I've marked one thing that definitely needs to be addressed.
Apart from that, I think it would be good to add at least one more test (file) that explicitly checks for the new behavior (e.g. with @has) instead of relying on this @snapshot test that could accidentally get --blessed in the future without notice.

[wackbyte]

I added the test to the existing visibility test with tests for other associated items as well.

[fmease]

Thanks for adding the test 👍

LGTM (I personally don't have bors rights, so I cannot bors-approve)

[jsha]

Thanks for the fix, @wackbyte! Sorry I took so long to review this. Looks good to me as well - and thanks @fmease for the review.

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 16749d1 has been approved by jsha

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 16749d1 with merge 51f714c...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: jsha
Pushing 51f714c to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (51f714c): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.1%	[1.1%, 1.1%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.3%	[-2.7%, -1.8%]	4
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[2.0%, 4.3%]	5
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.0%	[-3.0%, -3.0%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 646.537s -> 645.963s (-0.09%)