For these crates, the changes are nontrivial, so we
_do_ bump the versions on which their dependent crates depend.
Fortunately, since they are all pre-1.0, we don't need to
distinguish semver-additions from other changes. (Except for arti,
which _is_ post-1.0, but gets a patchlevel bump anyway.)
These are unstable crates with breaking changes:
```
tor-hscrypto
tor-hsclient
```
These have new or extended APIs:
```
safelog
tor-bytes
tor-cell
tor-linkspec
tor-llcrypto
tor-proto
tor-cert
arti-client
```
These have new unstable APIs or features:
```
tor-netdoc
tor-circmgr (also broke some unstable APIs)
arti (is post-1.0)
```
These have bugfixes only:
```
caret
tor-dirmgr
```
Their dependents are _not_ updated to a more recent version.
These bumped the version of a dependency that they don't expose
```
tor-rtcompat
fs-mistrust
```
This one had internal refactoring:
```
tor-netdir
```
These had trivial changes only:
```
tor-checkable
tor-ptmgr
tor-guardmgr
arti-hyper
arti-bench
arti-testing
```
These crates have had small code changes, but no API additions:
tor-config
tor-socksproto
tor-cert
tor-chanmgr
tor-ptmgr
tor-guardmgr
tor-circmgr
tor-dirclient
tor-dirmgr
arti
tor-hsservice
tor-congestion
These crates have had API extensions:
fs-mistrust
tor-llcrypto
tor-bytes
tor-checkable
tor-linkspec
tor-netdoc
tor-persist
arti-client
The four values of times taken in a particular test were changed to both
be human readable and have comments explaining their significance (they
are all important moments after the Unix Epoch for freedom)
These functions consume a checkable wrapper, and return a new
checkable wrapper with mapped contents but the same not-yet-checked
constraints.
As documented, They are "dangerous" because the provided function
gets access to the contents before they are checked; the caller has
to make sure that the provided function doesn't expose their
contents inappropriately.
This warning kind of snuck up on us! (See #748) For now, let's
disable it. (I've cleaned it up in a couple of examples, since
those are meant to be more idiomatic and user-facing.)
Closes#748.
The feature we want is `#[doc = include_str!("README.md")]`, which is
stable since 1.54 and our MSRV is now 1.56.
This commit is precisely the result of the following Perl rune:
perl -i~ -0777 -pe 's{(^//!(?!.*\@\@).*\n)+}{#![doc = include_str!("../README.md")]\n}m' crates/*/src/lib.rs
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.
"Trivial" here includes stuff like cargo reformatting, comment
edits, error message string changes, and clippy warning changes.
Crates that depend on these do not need to increment.
The "full" feature is a catch-all for all features, _except_:
* Those that select a particular implementation (like
tor-llcrypto/with-openssl) or build flag (like "static")
* Those that are experimental or unstable (like "experimental-api")
* Those that are testing-only.
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.