[PATCH v2 2/5] rust: maple_tree: add MapleTree

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 2:58 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> I'd just
>
>         assert!(tree.insert(100, the_answer, GFP_KERNEL).is_err());
>
> and if you want to test that the error you'd expect is actually returned, I'd
> suggest a regular kunit test, rather than a doc-test.
>
> I think doc-tests should mostly illustrate idiomatic usage, especially now that
> we have good and easily accessible kunit support.
>
> I say "mostly" because I think tests to the degree of where they stay within
> reasonable bounds of illustrating idiomatic usage are fine of course.

I agree that we should try to show idiomatic code as much as possible.
At the same time, sometimes it is instructive to show in an example
where a concrete error would be returned (if the error is documented,
i.e. not an implementation detail).

So I think that, as long as it is clear the call/line is "broken" on
purpose (i.e. as long as it is clear it is not real code) -- for
instance because it is within an `assert!` and/or has a comment to
that effect -- then it should be fine and that allows us to have those
instructive lines too.

So, as a rule of thumb, probably we don't want to show `unwrap()`s in
examples if the code could have been written "properly" instead, but
`unwrap_err()`s (i.e. error ones) within an `assert!` are likely fine
if the example would be better with it.

Cheers,
Miguel