Adds CI matrix for crate features

[almann]

This change makes it so we build our crate with all the various interesting permutations:

• default - build with no features set.
• --all-features - build with all the bells and whistles.
• --features X where X is:
  • ion-hash
  • experimental
  • ion-hash,experimental

When building/testing with these permutations, it uncovered a bug in the ion-hash doc tests where the test code depends on an optional feature. This has been conditionally compiled out, preserving the text of the doc comment (only runs when the appropriate feature flag is enabled).

Also updates the build of API docs to error out on leaking internal references. This change cleans up such documentation comments.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[popematt]

Should we check combinations of features for the coverage.yml workflow as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.01 ⚠️

Comparison is base (4872ae8) 89.34% compared to head (f98c539) 89.34%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #533      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.34%   89.34%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          84       84              
  Lines       13284    13284              
==========================================
- Hits        11869    11868       -1     
- Misses       1415     1416       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/ion_data/mod.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ion_hash/mod.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib.rs	89.21% <ø> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[almann]

Should we check combinations of features for the coverage.yml workflow as well?

@popematt - I don't think this is worth it. For code coverage, I think we just want to see the aggregate sum of coverage via --all-features especially when the denominator is "all the code."

[almann]

Closing and re-opening to try to unstuck Waiting for status to be reported

There is something odd going on here:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52200096/github-pull-request-waiting-for-status-to-be-reported

[popematt]

Closing and re-opening to try to unstuck Waiting for status to be reported

There is something odd going on here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52200096/github-pull-request-waiting-for-status-to-be-reported

Actually, it's waiting for those because of the branch protection rule. I just updated it, and as you can see, now it's waiting for e.g. Build and Test (macos-latest, all) instead of Build and Test (macos-latest). (Yes, it uses string matching on the workflow name.)

[almann]

Actually, it's waiting for those because of the branch protection rule. I just updated it, and as you can see, now it's waiting for e.g. Build and Test (macos-latest, all) instead of Build and Test (macos-latest). (Yes, it uses string matching on the workflow name.)

Oh thanks! I was quite puzzled as to what I was missing...