Fix re-export of doc hidden macro not showing up

[GuillaumeGomez]

It's part of the follow-up of #109697.

Re-exports of doc hidden macros should be visible. It was the only kind of re-export of doc hidden item that didn't show up.

r? @notriddle

[GuillaumeGomez]

Interestingly enough, bang macros need to be handled a bit differently otherwise you can't re-export the same one with two different names in the same module. How strange.

[notriddle]

If a #[doc(hidden)] item is re-exported, then should it be displayed?

That was under consideration in #109697, but the FCP never finished, and the issue was closed. Having re-exported #[doc(hidden)] items become visible was a problem for several use cases, such as glob re-exports and items with the same name but two different namespaces.

[GuillaumeGomez]

They are not. If you have:

#[doc(hidden)]
pub struct Foo;

pub use crate::Foo as Bar;

Then you'll have in the documentation:

pub use crate::Foo as Bar;

But Bar isn't clickable (crate::Foo isn't either) and Foo is not generated in the documentation. No inlining. I think it's what we agreed upon? It's the current behaviour so no changes.

And I forgot to run fmt again... Fixing the CI quickly.

[GuillaumeGomez]

I need to precise one thing: if you add #[doc(inline)] on the re-export, then even if the item has #[doc(hidden)], it'll be inlined.

EDIT: But again, it's the current behaviour, didn't change anything in that regard. This PR is really just fixing a bug on re-export of bang macros.

[notriddle]

But Bar isn't clickable (crate::Foo isn't either) and Foo is not generated in the documentation. No inlining. I think it's what we agreed upon? It's the current behaviour so no changes.

Ah, yes. That's what we agreed upon. Thanks for clarifying (I can see what you mean now from the test cases; it's just a good idea to be clear about it when writing here, too).

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 898dfc6 has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Ah, yes. That's what we agreed upon. Thanks for clarifying (I can see what you mean now from the test cases; it's just a good idea to be clear about it when writing here, too).

Absolutely! You did well to ask to clarify things. :)