docs.rs VS cargo-crev

Working in combination with CodeWhisperer in your IDE, you can send whole code sections to Amazon Q and ask for an explanation of what the selected code does. To show how this works, we open up the file.rs file cloned from this GitHub repository. This is part of an open source project to host documentation of crates for the Rust Programming Language, which is a language we are not familiar with.

Looks like a great initiative – I wish there was a reliable TS/JS equivalent of https://docs.rs (even considering rustdoc's deficiencies[1]).

I went through this exercise recently and so far my experience with trying to produce documentation from a somewhat convoluted TS codebase[2] has been disappointing. I would claim it's a consequence of the library's public (user-facing) API substantially differing from how the actual implementation is structured.

Typedoc produces bad results for that codebase so sphinx-js, which I wanted to use, doesn't have much to work with. I ultimately documented things by hand, for now, the way the API is meant to be used by the user.

Compare:

https://ts-results-es.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/api...

vs

https://tsdocs.dev/docs/ts-results-es/4.1.0-alpha.1/index.ht...

Rust Search Extension adds a section on docs.rs menubar which lists the features of a crate in a nice and easy to access format.

📝 Note: At the time of writing this post, I couldn't really locate the init function docs.rs documentation. It didn't seem easily accessible through any of the current HAL implementation documentation. Nevertheless, I reached the signature of the function through the source here.

Rust Crates are a Game-Changer 🎮:The ease of releasing a crate with `cargo publish` and the convenience of rolling out new versions amazed me. The auto-generated docs on Docs.rs. is an amazing tool, especially with docstring formatting. Doc tests serve as a two-fold tool for documenting the code and ensuring it's up-to-date.

I've found I manually type out certain subsets of URLs where possible[0], maybe that's subconsciously associated with my impression that Google Search results have gotten worse and worse over the years.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ and https://docs.rs/ come to mind.

docs.rs also downloads you crate automatically to generate docs and I would guess lib.rs does something similar

There are also a few key sites you'll want to keep in your back pocket at all times: - The Standard Library Documentation has complete documentation for every std library function in Rust - crates.io is a repository for all third-party packages, and docs.rs has human-readable documentation for the overwhelming majority of them - The Rust Cookbook has some code examples for common tasks you may need to perform - Make sure you are using clippy, which is available through Rustup and can be run with cargo clippy as a replacement to cargo check, it adds additional lints for your Rust code and is very helpful for teaching many of the best practices

OTOH, source-code-generated-docs normalize how code docs are, like the rust docs.rs paradigm, so it sort of forces or encourages package creators/maintainers to write docs.

In other cases it may be more documented, such as Golangs baked-in telemetry.

There should be better ways to check these problems. The best I have found so far is Crev https://github.com/crev-dev/crev/. It's most used implementation is Cargo-crev https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev, but hopefully it will become more required to use these types of tools. Certainty and metrics about how many eyes have been on a particular script, and what expertise they have would be a huge win for software.

The main problem the author is talking about is actually about version updates, which in Maven as well as crates.io is up to each lib's author, and is not curated in any way.

There's no technical solution to that, really. Do you think Nexus Firewall can pick up every exploit, or even most? How confident of that are you, and what data do you have to back that up? I don't have any myself, but would not be surprised at all if "hackers" can easily work around their scanning.

However, I don't have a better approach than using scanning tools like Nexus, or as the author proposes, use a curated library repository like Debian is doing (which hopefully gets enough eyeballs to remain secure) or the https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev project (manually reviewed code) also mentioned. It's interesting that they mention C/C++ just rely on distros providing dynamic libs instead which means you don't even control your dependencies versions, some distro does (how reliable is the distro?)... I wonder if that could work for other languages or if it's just as painful as it looks in the C world.

For instance, the worst company imaginable may be in charge of software that was once FOSS, and they may change absolutely nothing about it, so it should be fine. However, if a small update is added that does something bad, you should know about it immediately.

The solution seems to be much more clearly in the realm of things like crev: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev/

Wherein users can get a clear picture of what dependencies are used in the full chain, and how they have been independently reviewed for security and privacy. That's the real solution for the future. A quick score that is available upon display everytime you upgrade, with large warnings for anything above a certain threshold.

The metrics on crates.io are a useful sniff test, but ultimately you need to review things yourself, or trust some contributors and reviewers. Some projects, like cargo crev or cargo vet can help with the process.

You can use cargo-geiger or cargo-crev to check for whether people you trusted (e.g. u/jonhoo ) trust this crate.

There is a similar idea being explored with https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev - you trust a reviewer who reviews crates for trustworthiness, as well as other reviewers.

[cargo-crev](https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev) looks like a good step in the right direction but not really commonly used.

'cargo crev' makes this kind of workflow possible: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev

The crev folks themselves are no fans of PGP but need a way to security identify that you are in fact the review author, so that's where the id generation comes in. Ultimately crev is just a bunch of repos with text files you sign with IDs. The nice property is that you can chain these together into a web of trust and it's unfortunate that vet doesn't just use the same signed files on repos model as a foundation because even if they don't trust anyone else, we could turn around and trust them.