update README, CI

Author: augustin-v

examples/README.md

@@ -80,3 +80,4 @@ The example libraries are separated into the following three categories:
 [general]: #general
 [restriction]: #restriction
 [supplementary]: #supplementary
+[testing]: #testing

examples/supplementary/nonexistent_path_in_comment/Cargo.toml

@@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ crate-type = ["cdylib"]
 cargo_metadata = { workspace = true }
 clippy_utils = { git = "https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy", rev = "19e305bb57a7595f2a8d81f521c0dd8bf854e739" }
 dylint_linting = { path = "../../../utils/linting" }
-regex = { workspace = true }
 once_cell = { workspace = true }
+regex = { workspace = true }
 
 [dev-dependencies]
 dylint_testing = { path = "../../../utils/testing" }

examples/supplementary/nonexistent_path_in_comment/README.md

@@ -1,31 +1,32 @@
-# Nonexistent Path in Comment Lint
+# nonexistent_path_in_comment
 
 ### What it does
-
-This lint checks comments in the code for file path references and verifies that the referenced files actually do exist. It processes both line comments (using `//`) and block comments (`/* ... */`) by using regex to extract potential file paths. When the lint finds a file path that does not exist on the filesystem it emits a warning.
+This lint checks code comments, including both line comments (using `//`) and block comments
+(`/*...*/`) for file path references. It then validates that the referenced files exist either
+relative to the source file's directory or relative to the workspace root. When a file path
+reference does not point to an existing file, the lint emits a warning.
 
 ### Why is this bad?
-
-References to nonexistent files in comments can be misleading:  
-- They clutter the code with outdated or inaccurate references.  
-- They may cause confusion among developers who are trying to trace implementation details or documentation.  
+References to nonexistent files in comments can be misleading:
+- They clutter the code with outdated or inaccurate references.
+- They may cause confusion among developers who are trying to trace implementation details
+or documentation.
 
 ### Known problems
-- Can only check for absolute path or path relative to commented file.
-- [This example from the issue](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint/issues/1225#issue-2315607396) would get flaged even if it did exist, as this lint doesn't check for project root.
+- This example:
+```rust
+// dylint/dylint/build.rs  (it exists)
+```
+would get flagged here because the workspace root is `supplementary`
+it did exist, as this lint doesn't check for project root.
 
 ### Example
-
-The lint issues a warning when a comment refers to a file that does not exist:
-
 ```
-// See ../nonexistent/path/file.rs for further details
+// See ../nonexistent/path/file.rs for implementation details
 fn main() {}
 ```
-
-Use this approach instead, referring to a file that exists:
-
+Use instead:
 ```
-// See ../existing/file.rs for actual implementation details
+// See ../actual/path/file.rs for implementation details
 fn main() {}
-```
+```

examples/supplementary/nonexistent_path_in_comment/src/lib.rs

@@ -13,11 +13,24 @@ use rustc_span::{BytePos, FileName, Span, SyntaxContext};
 
 dylint_linting::declare_late_lint! {
     /// ### What it does
-    /// Checks for file paths in comments that don't exist in the filesystem.
+    /// This lint checks code comments, including both line comments (using `//`) and block comments
+    /// (`/*...*/`) for file path references. It then validates that the referenced files exist either
+    /// relative to the source file's directory or relative to the workspace root. When a file path
+    /// reference does not point to an existing file, the lint emits a warning.
     ///
     /// ### Why is this bad?
-    /// References to nonexistent files in comments can be misleading and may indicate outdated
-    /// documentation or typos.
+    /// References to nonexistent files in comments can be misleading:
+    /// - They clutter the code with outdated or inaccurate references.
+    /// - They may cause confusion among developers who are trying to trace implementation details
+    /// or documentation.
+    ///
+    /// ### Known problems
+    /// - This example:
+    /// ```rust
+    /// // dylint/dylint/build.rs  (it exists)
+    /// ```
+    /// would get flagged here because the workspace root is `supplementary`
+    /// it did exist, as this lint doesn't check for project root.
     ///
     /// ### Example
     /// ```