Replace askama with rinja

[GuillaumeGomez]

Another askama maintainer and myself forked it and named the fork rinja. The whole difference is explained in this blog post (not publicly released yet, waiting for docs.rs to deploy the new version using it before). But in short, rinja got a lot of improvements and compiles faster, so I think it's definitely worth it to use it in rustdoc as well.

r? @notriddle

[rustbot]

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Reworded the document. Lot of strange things in there.

[Kobzol]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 5d87279 with merge b533189...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: b533189 (b5331890933e9098119a469f83b8e7e4737abbd2)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (b533189): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.7%	[0.7%, 0.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 768.843s -> 769.065s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 328.71 MiB -> 328.71 MiB (-0.00%)

[GuillaumeGomez]

@Kobzol Considering it should only impact compilation of rustdoc itself, not sure it's visible in the benches. Oh well, at least it confirmed that it didn't impact things negatively. :)

[Kobzol]

Oh, I thought that this is also affecting the performance of cargo doc/rustdoc. In any case, at least we know that perf is neutral, as you said.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Well, let's wait for @notriddle to give a look then. ;)

[notriddle]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 5d87279 has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #127786) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[GuillaumeGomez]

I'll update the priority so I don't have to rebase too often...

@bors r+ p=1

[bors]

📌 Commit 8d40b9e has been approved by GuillaumeGomez

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[GuillaumeGomez]

@bors r=notriddle

[bors]

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

• There's another pull request that is currently being tested, blocking this pull request: Add NuttX based targets for RISC-V and ARM #127755

[bors]

📌 Commit 8d40b9e has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 8d40b9e with merge 84c257e...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: notriddle
Pushing 84c257e to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (84c257e): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.5%	[0.3%, 0.7%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.7%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 770.312s -> 771.292s (0.13%)
Artifact size: 328.81 MiB -> 328.81 MiB (-0.00%)