Activate ansi feature for docs.rs

[gwenn]

Apply:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/how-to-document-optional-features-in-api-docs/64577/3
And update build script accordingly
Currently, there is a warning:

warning: unresolved link to `Perform::advance`
   --> src/lib.rs:139:15
    |
139 |     /// See [`Perform::advance`] for more details.
    |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Perform` has no associated item named `advance`
    |
    = note: `#[warn(rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links)]` on by default

warning: `vte` (lib doc) generated 1 warning

But I am not sure if the link should be on Parser::advance or Perfom::terminated.

[chrisduerr]

But I am not sure if the link should be on Parser::advance or Perfom::terminated.

Should be Self::advance.

[chrisduerr]

Seems reasonable, I'll take a proper look once CI passes.

Generally if there's other features that are doc relevant, they should also be considered for this patch though. No reason to limit it to ansi.

[gwenn]

Seems reasonable, I'll take a proper look once CI passes.

Done.

Generally if there's other features that are doc relevant, they should also be considered for this patch though. No reason to limit it to ansi.

I see only serde but it doesn't seem relevant to me.

[chrisduerr]

Is there any reason to have the --cfg docsrs here? What exactly does it achieve? I'd assume rustdoc verification should be largely independent of target documentation platform.

[gwenn]

I am just following:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/how-to-document-optional-features-in-api-docs/64577/3

You gave me a link to rand crate:

Any reason not to use doc_auto_cfg instead? (https://github.com/rust-random/rand/blob/master/src/lib.rs#L56)

And it seems that they do the same:
https://github.com/rust-random/rand/blob/7808f4e1f7d9578e3c08405b1f4e575720d58a51/.github/workflows/test.yml#L37
!

[kchibisov]

I'd assume rustdoc verification should be largely independent of target documentation platform.

unless you have doc stuff behind docsrs feature, it shouldn't really matter.

[chrisduerr]

unless you have doc stuff behind docsrs feature, it shouldn't really matter.

Which really shouldn't be the case tbh. I don't like singling out docsrs even though it's pretty much the "standard".

[gwenn]

I am almost sure that we can use any name instead of docsrs.
Because, it is used only to activate the nightly doc_auto_cfg feature.