Doc cleanup

consensus/src/model/services/reachability.rs

@@ -13,21 +13,21 @@ pub trait ReachabilityService {
     /// Note that we use the graph theory convention here which defines that a block is also an ancestor of itself.
     fn is_chain_ancestor_of(&self, this: Hash, queried: Hash) -> bool;
 
-    /// Result version of [`is_dag_ancestor_of`] (avoids unwrapping internally)
+    /// Result version of [`Self::is_dag_ancestor_of`] (avoids unwrapping internally)
     fn is_dag_ancestor_of_result(&self, this: Hash, queried: Hash) -> Result<bool>;
 
     /// Returns true if `this` is a DAG ancestor of `queried` (i.e., `queried ∈ future(this) ∪ {this}`).
     /// Note: this method will return true if `this == queried`.
     /// The complexity of this method is `O(log(|future_covering_set(this)|))`
     fn is_dag_ancestor_of(&self, this: Hash, queried: Hash) -> bool;
 
-    /// Checks if `this` is DAG ancestor of any of the blocks in `queried`. See [`is_dag_ancestor_of`] as well.
+    /// Checks if `this` is DAG ancestor of any of the blocks in `queried`. See [`Self::is_dag_ancestor_of`] as well.
     fn is_dag_ancestor_of_any(&self, this: Hash, queried: &mut impl Iterator<Item = Hash>) -> bool;
 
-    /// Checks if any of the blocks in `list` is DAG ancestor of `queried`. See [`is_dag_ancestor_of`] as well.
+    /// Checks if any of the blocks in `list` is DAG ancestor of `queried`. See [`Self::is_dag_ancestor_of`] as well.
     fn is_any_dag_ancestor(&self, list: &mut impl Iterator<Item = Hash>, queried: Hash) -> bool;
 
-    /// Result version of [`is_any_dag_ancestor`] (avoids unwrapping internally)
+    /// Result version of [`Self::is_any_dag_ancestor`] (avoids unwrapping internally)
     fn is_any_dag_ancestor_result(&self, list: &mut impl Iterator<Item = Hash>, queried: Hash) -> Result<bool>;
 
     /// Finds the tree child of `ancestor` which is also a chain ancestor of `descendant`.

wallet/core/src/message.rs

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ pub struct SignMessageOptions {
     /// side-channel attacks. Providing it definitely improves security, but omitting it
     /// should not be considered dangerous, as most legacy signature schemes don't provide
     /// mitigations against such attacks. To read more about the relevant discussions that
-    /// arose in adding this randomness please see: https://github.com/sipa/bips/issues/195
+    /// arose in adding this randomness please see: <https://github.com/sipa/bips/issues/195>
     pub no_aux_rand: bool,
 }