Check redundant_explicit_links against generated URLs

[qaijuang]

Fixes #155458.

rustdoc::redundant_explicit_links checked explicit link destinations by resolving both the label and the destination as intra-doc paths. That misses links written as local rustdoc page URLs, such as struct.B.html, because those URLs do not appear in doc_link_resolutions.

This PR keeps the existing path-resolution check and falls back to comparing the explicit destination with the local href that rustdoc would generate for the resolved label.

[qaijuang]

cc @lolbinarycat

[qaijuang]

I just noticed #156711, which seems related to broader rustdoc/compiler path-resolution work.

Does that tracking issue change the desired direction for this PR? If the preferred approach is to wait for the broader item-signature resolution mechanism, I’m happy to adjust/park this, but I’d appreciate guidance so I know whether this PR is still worth pursuing.

[fmease]

I've yet to review your PR (sorry about that), so I can't tell for certain. However, I'm inclined to believe that the feature described in that tracking issue is not relevant. Double-checking that later.

[qaijuang]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #159046) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing.

will rebase rq

[qaijuang]

Seems @fmease is tight on schedule, safe to @rustbot reroll

[GuillaumeGomez]

Sorry, just uncovered this PR in my "to review list". ^^'

Thanks for the improvement!

@bors r+ rollup

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit da95d5c has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[JonathanBrouwer]

💔 I suspect this PR failed tests as part of a rollup
@bors r-

After fixing the problem, consider running a try job for the failed job before re-approving.

Link to failure: #161683 (comment)

[rust-bors]

This pull request was unapproved.

This PR was contained in a rollup (#161683), which was unapproved.

View changes since this unapproval

[qaijuang]

I’ll do rebase in a few mins 🫠

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Let's go again! =D

@bors r+ rollup

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit 1f5e36d has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[rust-timer]

Note

This PR was benchmarked as part of triage of its containing rollup: triage URL.

Finished benchmarking commit (823287b): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -0.4%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.8%	[2.8%, 2.8%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.7%	[-3.7%, -3.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.4%	[-3.7%, 2.8%]	2

Cycles

Results (primary -3.5%, secondary 17.5%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	17.5%	[17.5%, 17.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-3.5%	[-3.5%, -3.5%]	1

Binary size

Results (primary -0.0%, secondary -0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	4
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.0%	[-0.0%, -0.0%]	4

Bootstrap: 471.419s -> 470.542s (-0.19%)
Artifact size: 400.34 MiB -> 400.28 MiB (-0.01%)