Code change:
<!-- Thank you for filing a regression report! A regression is something that changed between versions of Rust but was not supposed to. Please provide a short summary of the regression, along with any information you feel is relevant to replicate it. --Since i don't know which version, when running on a project, the left sidebar of the docs no longer has a nav for all crates in the dependency graph. However, the documentation for all dependencies is still compiled. a Rust project with a few dependencies. : Left sidebar has a list of all dependencies, linking to each crate's local docs. : No such thing. <!-- Provide the most recent version this worked on, for example: It most recently worked on: Rust 1.47 --It most recently worked on: I honestly don't remember. I update my nightly before every dev session. Allegedly that bug is 27 days old. <!-- Provide the version you are using that has the regression. --: <!-- If you know when this regression occurred, please add a line like below, replacing with one of stable, beta, or nightly. modify labels: +regression-from-stable-to-{channel} -regression-untriaged --
Appears to be a regression from , the call to was moved into , but this function is not called on the crate-root doc page. I tested locally that it fails on and works on .
Checking looks like this has made it onto the 1.53 beta.
cc
I think the ideal fix is around We should emit a sidebar- for the top page that just calls . And remove that comment, since we now have dynamic crate loading. A quicker fix is to just move the call to addSidebarCrates so it gets called independently from initSidebarItems. I like that less since the crates really are a sidebar item and should be treated as such.
I can do that if no one else wants to do it!
Go for it! I'm happy to review.
Assigning .
It's actually something I fixed in (still waiting for approval/review).
I propose we plan on landing and backporting to fix the regression: it's much smaller and limited to the specific fix. Then we can work on landing in nightly.
No, the approach taken in is problematic. The information is already there and we don't need this new file. EDIT: also, is ready, there is a debate for the other part of the PR (the change on module's sidebar) which I can move to another PR.
See - after some discussion, and concluded to merge as our quick fix. To explain why I proposed to add a tiny sidebar- We have one that's loaded by a variety of different pages. It also potentially has many different entry points. For instance, the primary entry point is that when itself is loaded, it runs various functions, adding event handlers and so on. Another entry point is that when sidebar- loads, it calls . That's the root cause of this bug - code in expected would get called, and for a subset of pages it wasn't. It's a bit inelegant to have a small file whose purpose is only to call a known function. But I think that inelegance is balanced against the improved maintainability of having most doc pages follow closer to the same code path through The more code paths, the more chances for bugs and the more complexity in testing. Another way to address this longer-term would be to eliminate the entrypoint entirely. Instead, when runs, it would trigger the load of sidebar-items and run any callbacks based on that load. Yet another way to address this would be to separate out from , so that is called unconditionally for all pages.

Related discussion:
text: )?; write_minify("search.js", static_files::SEARCH_JS)?; write_minify("settings.js", static_files::SETTINGS_JS)?; <ins> write_minify("sidebar-items.js", static_files::sidebar::ITEMS)?; </ins> if cx.shared.include_sources { write_minify("source-script.js", static_files::sidebar::SOURCE_SCRIPT)?; }