[rustdoc] Various issues with search tabs

[Seeker14491]

I've come across several issues related to the search tabs:

• While on the search results screen, if you click on the "As parameters" or "As return value" tabs, then type in a query, the results shown are from the "Types/modules" tab.
• The "As parameters" and "As return value" tabs only show results that have the query string in its name or path. Even then it's missing results. For example, std::thread::current has signature pub fn current() -> Thread, yet doesn't show up in the "As return value" tab when searching for "Thread".
• When searching, functions whose name is the same as its return type are not shown on the "Types/modules" tab. (details in my second post)
• I think the first tab shouldn't be labeled "Types/modules", as it also shows functions and macros. (moved to separate issue [rustdoc] Improve "Types/modules" label on the search results page #45787)

Link to the recent pull request implementing the search tabs

cc @GuillaumeGomez

[Seeker14491]

This is the original issue I was going to post about.

When searching, functions whose name is the same as its return type are not shown. For example, the zip method of the iterator trait returns a struct called Zip. When you search for "zip" in the search bar, the zip function is absent from the default "Types/modules" tab of the results:

It only appears in the "As return value" tab:

I think the correct behavior should be the function appearing in both places.

I had a look at the source, and I believe the problem is here:

if (results['others'].length < maxResults && ((query.search && obj.name.indexOf(query.search)) || added === false))
{
    results['others'].push(obj);
}

Adding != -1 so the code looks like this fixes the issue:

if (results['others'].length < maxResults && ((query.search && obj.name.indexOf(query.search) != -1) || added === false))
{
    results['others'].push(obj);
}

I don't understand the code very well though.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Oh nice, thanks for the feedback! I'll fix it today.

[Seeker14491]

Great work! The last point hasn't been addressed though. I think something like "In name" would be a better label. Thoughts?

[GuillaumeGomez]

No clue... Might be worth opening a new issue so we can discuss about it.

[Seeker14491]

Ok, opened #45787.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Thanks!