0.99.[012] have a bug https://github.com/JelteF/derive_more/issues/114
which makes the Deref derive for bridgedesc::StateGuard not work
and therefore breaks minimal-versions CI.
It seems simpler to require the newer version everywhere.
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
```
Every error now has an action (what we were trying to do), a
resource (what we were trying to do it to), and a source (what
problem we encountered).
Initially I tried to add "action" and "resource" fields to error
variants individually, but that led to a combinatorial explosion.
Part of #323.
These changes make sure that the errors conform to our preferred
style, and include a description of what exactly we were doing when
something went wrong.
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.
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.
Rename "deletable" to "obsolete".
Simplify function structure.
Report errors from `metadata()` and `modified()`.
Don't claim that we're going to delete something unless we are.
Comment about making CUTOFF configurable.
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.)
`StateMgr` got a new `unlock()` method that does what it says on the
tin. We now call it from `bootstrap()` using the new
`util::StateMgrUnlockGuard`, which works in a manner similar to the
`BoolResetter` from `tor_dirmgr`.
(A decent small little task in future might be to unify these types in
some sort of general arti utility crate?)
closes arti#335
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.
To implement this, we had to refactor the tor_circmgr api for
flushing state changes to disk, so that it checks if it has the lock,
and only then tries to store.
Nick Mathewson
Ian Jackson
trinity-1686a
Orhun Parmaksız
eta