We now _use_ the function pointers rather than comparing them; this
lets us drop our Eq/PartialEq/Hash implementations for
`ConstTypeId_` and instead just use `TypeId`s once we're in run-time
code.
It's experimental, and tokio-only. To enable it, build with
the "rpc" feature turned on, and connect to
`~/.arti-rpc-TESTING/PIPE`. (`nc -U` worked for me)
I'll add some instructions.
Per our design, every connection starts out unauthenticated, and
needs one authenticate command to become authenticated.
Right now the only authentication type is "This is a unix named
socket where everybody who can connect has permission."
This lets us avoid async_trait in tor-rpccmd, and makes us use a
Box<>. I think we might actually get an even smarter type later on,
but we will need to play with this for a while too.
I'm not sure about these APIs at all! They force us to use
`async_trait` for `tor_rpccmd::Context`, which bothers me. Should we
just have a function that returns
`Option<Box<dyn Sink<Item=X, Error=Y>>` or something? If so,
what's the correct Y?
This code uses some kludges (discussed with Ian previously and
hopefully well documented here) to get a type-identifier for each
type in a const context. It then defines a macro to declare a
type-erased versions of a concrete implementation functions, and
register those implementations to be called later.
We will probably want to tweak a bunch of this code as we move ahead.
Ordinarily you can cancel a future just by dropping it, but we'll
want the ability to cancel futures that we no longer own (because we
gave them to a `FuturesUnordered`).
This is a workaround for an issue that I'm about to encounter
somewhere in our pile of dependencies as I add arti-rpcserver, and
somehow make serde_json visible in this test code thereby, making
the PartialEq method resolution ambiguous.
!1121 renamed *ProtocolFailed to *ProtocolViolation.
!1118 introduced a new reference to a *ProtocolFailed
I rebased !1118 onto main and enabled automerge. That tested the tip
of !1118. I assume a similar thing happened to !1121.
The possibility of such regressions is a property of our workflow.
It's rather surprising it doesn't happen more often.
1. Abbreviate the link text, and don't have it contain `crate`
which is not really great in docs.
2. Use `super::` for the link target, to find the right thing.
(`crate` doesn't seem to work in rustdoc, perhaps deliberately,
although the error messages are ridiculous and claim the
nonexistence of intermediate modules.)
3. Wrap the lines a bit more.
Nick Mathewson
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson