In redesigned rustdoc toolbar: Adjust spacings and sizing to improve behavior with over-long names

[steffahn]

Fixes #130993.

Some additional adjustments also fix more issues I’ve noticed such as:

• on small screens, opening search made the 3 bottons move down very slightly (because the row with the crate picker got larger, enlarging the whole grid), this is fixed with a min-height: 60px on the toolbar
• with long names in the “breadcrumps” area, wrapping was very broken
  • 
  • fixed:
  • 
• the left grid area has a minimal width (105px); like before, that leaves about enough space for crate names becoming as short as “all cra…”;
  to save even more space, there’s support for a little bit of extra squeezing of the buttons
  • 
  • 
  • 

I’m really not super good with HTML or CSS stuff at all; there seem to be many magical numbers already, I’ve just used px values until things look right, I hope that’s okay 🤷‍♂️

r? @GuillaumeGomez

cc @notriddle

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in HTML/CSS/JS.

cc @GuillaumeGomez, @jsha

[steffahn]

I suppose the diff of the 2nd commit is small enough (see below) that I can already squash without creating confusion in review.

cf8ed46

.rustdoc-breadcrumbs {
	grid-area: main-heading-breadcrumbs;
	line-height: 1.25;
+	display: flex;
+	flex-wrap: wrap;
	align-items: end;
	padding-top: 5px;
}

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in GUI tests.

cc @GuillaumeGomez

[notriddle]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit c27b54a has been approved by notriddle

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Thanks to both of you for the fix and the regression test! :)

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c27b54a with merge 0d6e130...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: notriddle
Pushing 0d6e130 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0d6e130): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

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

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 1.2%)

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)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.2%	[1.2%, 1.2%]	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: 767.898s -> 768.13s (0.03%)
Artifact size: 341.39 MiB -> 341.39 MiB (0.00%)