These tests include a few reference cases, as well as a little
framework to make sure that the client and the proxy implementation
will handshake with one another successfully.
Retain "SocksHandshake" as a deprecated synonym.
Also, make an (on-by-default) feature for SocksProxyHandshake.
(There is about to be a SocksClientHandshake as well.)
Because we want to work more on ensuring that our semver stability
story is solid, we are _not_ bumping arti-client to 1.0.0 right now.
Here are the bumps we _are_ doing. Crates with "minor" bumps have
had API breaks; crates with "patch" bumps have had new APIs added.
Note that `tor-congestion` is not bumped here: it's a new crate, and
hasn't been published before.
```
tor-basic-utils minor
fs-mistrust minor
tor-config minor
tor-rtcompat minor
tor-rtmock minor
tor-llcrypto patch
tor-bytes patch
tor-linkspec minor
tor-cell minor
tor-proto minor
tor-netdoc patch
tor-netdir minor
tor-persist patch
tor-chanmgr minor
tor-guardmgr minor
tor-circmgr minor
tor-dirmgr minor
arti-client minor
arti-hyper minor
arti major
arti-bench minor
arti-testing minor
```
Since our last round of releases, these crates have had either
trivial changes, or changes that did not affect their APIs.
Therefore we are bumping their versions, but not changing which
versions of them other crates depend on.
This comprises four renames:
```
write_onto -> write_onto_infallible
write_into -> write_into_infallible
write -> write_infallible
writer_and_consume -> write_and_consume_infallible.
```
The rest of this branch will be concerned with replacing these
`_infallible` methods with ones that return a `Result`. This is
part of #513.
This commit was made by reverting the previous commit, then
re-running the script I used to generate it. In theory there should
be no semantic changes: only changes due to improved formatting from
cargo edit.
I followed the following procedure to make these changes:
* I used maint/changed_crates to find out which crates had changed
since 0.3.0.
* I used grep and maint/list_crates to sort those crates in
topological (dependency) order.
* I looked through semver_status to find which crates were listed as
having semver-relevant changes (new APIs and breaking changes).
* I scanned through the git logs of the crates with no
semver-relevant changes listed to confirm that, indeed, they had
no changes. For those crates, I incremented their patch-level
version _without_ changing the version that other crates depend on.
* I scanned through the git logs of the crates with no
semver-relevant changes listed to confirm that, indeed, they had
no obvious breaking changes.
* I treated all crates that depend on `arti` and/or `arti-client` as
having breaking changes.
* I identified crates that depend on crates that have changed, even
if they have not changed themselves, and identified them as having
a non-breaking change.
* For all of the crates, I used `cargo set-version -p $CRATE --bump
$STATUS` (where `STATUS` is `patch` or `minor`) to update the
versions, and the depended-upon versions.
These crates had only clippy fixes that do not affect their
behavior:
tor-bytes
tor-cell
tor-events
tor-linkspec
tor-netdir
tor-socksproto
This crate only had the cargo-husky dependency removed, which
does not affect compatibility:
tor-llcrypto
Since these changes have no compatibility effects, it is not
necessary to bump the versions of these crates which other crates
depend on.
This is an automated change made with a perl one-liner and verified
with grep -L and grep -l.
Some warnings are introduced with this change; they will be removed
in subsequent commits.
See arti#208 for older discussion on this issue.
Not all of these strictly need to be bumped to 0.2.0; many could go
to 0.1.1 instead. But since everything at the tor-rtcompat and
higher layers has had breaking API changes, it seems not so useful
to distinguish. (It seems unlikely that anybody at this stage is
depending on e.g. tor-protover but not arti-client.)
This lint is IMO inherently ill-conceived.
I have looked for the reasons why this might be thought to be a good
idea and there were basically two (and they are sort of contradictory):
I. "Calling ‘.clone()` on an Rc, Arc, or Weak can obscure the fact
that only the pointer is being cloned, not the underlying data."
This is the wording from
https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/v0.0.212/#clone_on_ref_ptr
It is a bit terse; we are left to infer why it is a bad idea to
obscure this fact. It seems to me that if it is bad to obscure some
fact, that must be because the fact is a hazard. But why would it be
a hazard to not copy the underlying data ?
In other languages, faliing to copy the underlying data is a serious
correctness hazard. There is a whose class of bugs where things were
not copied, and then mutated and/or reused in multiple places in ways
that were not what the programmer intended. In my experience, this is
a very common bug when writing Python and Javascript. I'm told it's
common in golang too.
But in Rust this bug is much much harder to write. The data inside an
Arc is immutable. To have this bug you'd have use interior mutability
- ie mess around with Mutex or RefCell. That provides a good barrier
to these kind of accidents.
II. "The reason for writing Rc::clone and Arc::clone [is] to make it
clear that only the pointer is being cloned, as opposed to the
underlying data. The former is always fast, while the latter can
be very expensive depending on what is being cloned."
This is the reasoning found here
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/2048
This is saying that *not* using Arc::clone is hazardous.
Specifically, that a deep clone is a performance hazard.
But for this argument, the lint is precisely backwards. It's linting
the "good" case and asking for it to be written in a more explicit
way; while the supposedly bad case can be written conveniently.
Also, many objects (in our codebase, and in all the libraries we use)
that are Clone are in fact simply handles. They contain Arc(s) (or
similar) and are cheap to clone. Indeed, that is the usual case.
It does not make sense to distinguish in the syntax we use to clone
such a handle, whether the handle is a transparent Arc, or an opaque
struct containing one or more other handles.
Forcing Arc::clone to be written as such makes for code churn when a
type is changed from Arc<Something> to Something: Clone, or vice
versa.
Nick Mathewson
trinity-1686a
Ian Jackson
Orhun Parmaksız
Samanta Navarro
eta