[ci] #1658: Add documentation check

[ales-tsurko]

Sorry for omitting the PR template here, but the change is very little and clear. It just adds documentation check (using cargo doc) to CI.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2367 (34a4919) into iroha2-dev (6973f71) will increase coverage by 1.52%.
The diff coverage is 64.62%.

❗ Current head 34a4919 differs from pull request most recent head c213d16. Consider uploading reports for the commit c213d16 to get more accurate results

@@              Coverage Diff               @@
##           iroha2-dev    #2367      +/-   ##
==============================================
+ Coverage       65.50%   67.02%   +1.52%     
==============================================
  Files             133      140       +7     
  Lines           24697    26282    +1585     
==============================================
+ Hits            16177    17616    +1439     
- Misses           8520     8666     +146     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
cli/derive/src/lib.rs	74.72% <ø> (ø)
cli/src/torii/mod.rs	28.88% <ø> (ø)
client/src/http.rs	47.82% <ø> (ø)
config/src/lib.rs	15.38% <0.00%> (+1.09%)	⬆️
core/src/lib.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
core/src/smartcontracts/isi/account.rs	12.30% <ø> (ø)
core/src/smartcontracts/isi/block.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
core/src/smartcontracts/isi/domain.rs	39.82% <ø> (ø)
core/src/smartcontracts/isi/triggers.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
core/src/smartcontracts/isi/tx.rs	25.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 97 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4412892...c213d16. Read the comment docs.

[pesterev]

According to the CI report, a few comments need to be corrected to pass the CI checks.

[outoftardis]

@ales-tsurko this is the only link that is still unresolved.
I think my knowledge of Rust is limited here to understand why all the syntax I'm trying is failing, so if you have any ideas how to fix this -- please do

[ales-tsurko]

ok, thanks!

[ales-tsurko]

The problem caused by the Handle trait defined inside macro, so there's no trait definition until the macro is used. We have two options:

1. define the trait outside the macro;
2. don't link documentation for the trait.

@appetrosyan what do you think?

[outoftardis]

maybe we can omit the link altogether? the description would still be clear even without the link

[appetrosyan]

don't link documentation for the trait.

Is fine by me. We should avoid defining non-private traits inside macros, though.

[pesterev]

LGTM