Previously we used Duration::mul_f64, which panics if its output is
out-of-range. That shouldn't actually be possible for the values
we're giving it, but probably it's better to just multiply in a safe
way.
This resolves a couple of XXXXs and therefore relates to #231.
The rand crate's documentation says it's not okay to rely on StdRng
having reproducible output. So instead, let's switch to ChaCha12Rng
instead (which is what StrRng currently uses).
We want to only use TODO in the codebase for non-blockers, and open
tickets for anything that is a bigger blocker than a TODO. These
XXXXs seem like definite non-blockers to me.
Part of arti#231.
Just as `in_same_family` is a member of Relay, so the function for
getting all the real family members of a relay should belong in the
same crate.
This change also removes the `family()` accessor: it gives the _claimed_ family rather
than the _acknlowedged_ family, and is therefore a bit dangerous.
There's still a hole in this logic; I've noted it in the Limitations
section. If we get a microdescriptor for a relay in between creating
and using the guard restriction, it might be omitted from the family
list.
There's not much reason to use a HashSet here, since we're just
going over the whole list.
This reverts commit 16e8489abb and does a little more
refactoring.
The redundant method was a `to_owned` that probably shouldn't have
been called that. It was only used in one place.
The tests should get tor-linkspec's line coverage up above 90%.
This was a relic of the old, now-unused "caret_enum!" macro.
Removing it gets caret's coverage to 100%.
Yes, technically this is a semver breaker on caret.
For this one I just wrote some "are things completely broken" tests
for the rand_compat wrappers. These won't detect subtle biases in
the RNGs! They'll only let you know if the wrappers have screwed up
in some way that always sets a given bit to 1 or 0.
This is mostly a finger exercise, and an experiment in "what does
grcov consider to be coverage". Here's what I've found out...
* In grcov's eyes, most #[derive(Foo)] lines count as containing code;
but calling any one derived function counts as calling those lines.
* Unlike with tarpaulin, it is actually possible to reach 100% grcov
line coverage. (Tarpaulin likes to pick "}" lines and tell you that
you never reached them; or sometimes it picks expression
statements that have the effect of a return, and tells you that
they're unreached. Even with these tests, tarpaulin claims that
the line coverage of tor-units is only 97.3%.)
* In rust, it may be a bit hopeless trying to get high function
coverage. Even though we've hit every line of the tor-units crate,
the function coverage from its own tests is only 9.38% (55.41%
from other crates). I think this is probably due to derived
functions, or maybe due to generics getting instantiated?
I've got no idea; the denominator for the function coverage
lines fluctuates oddly.
If the user has CHUTNEY_PATH set, respect that value, rather than
cloning a local chutney.
Also, if we have a local chutney, then update it in case there have
been changes.
This change jettisons the awk and ed dependencies and instead uses a
real HTML parser, via the BeautifulSoup library in python.
Using BeautifulSoup lets us do trickier stuff, like actually
extracting the coverage totals and adding our own table, with
per-crate coverage.
The script only does this post-processing when it finds python3; the
script exits with an error if BeautifulSoup isn't installed.
Nick Mathewson
eta
Neel Chauhan
dagon