The compiler can apparently tell that we aren't generating compile
errors! Also that we're not yet using a feature provided here.
(New lint in currently Nightly.)
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.
Relay nicknames are always between 1 and 19 characters long, and
they're always ASCII: That means that storing them in a [u8;19] will
always be possible, and always use less resources than storing them
in a String.
Fortunately, the tinystr crate already helps us with this kind of
thing.
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 commit uses the `visibility` and `visible` crates to
conditionally make certain structs and their fields public
(respectively). This is incredibly dangerous to use for anything
besides testing, and I've tried to write the documentation for the
feature accordingly.
Now we use NetParams. That implies making its constructor public,
which I think it fine.
This is related to #413 but is far from completing that ticket.
This should save around 1MB per consensus, since every relay has a
'protocols' lines, but there are only a few distinct possibilities
for such a line.
Closes#385.
When the version is a Tor version, we can just parse it; otherwise,
we can intern it. This shrinks GenericRouterStatus and avoids a lot
of extra help allocations.
This commit changes the main parsing code for RsaIdentity in
tor-netdoc, and .
Previously, parse_hex_ident was something like 10% of our startup
CPU time; now it's only like ~2%. (Still not perfect, but way
better.)
Closes#377.
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.
Orhun Parmaksız
Ian Jackson
Nick Mathewson
Ian Jackson
Dimitris Apostolou
Samanta Navarro
eta
Christian Grigis
trinity-1686a