In reviewing !553 I noticed that the empty digest list error had to be
handled in two places. I filed #492 about the duplication.
In fact it turns out to have been quadruplication.
The new code also avoids cloning the underlying objects, instead
sorting a Vec of references.
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.
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 refactors the dirclient error type into two cases:
errors when constructing a circuit, and errors that occur once we
already have a one-hop circuit. The latter can usually be
attributed to the specific cache we're talking to.
This commit also adds a function to expose the information about
which directory gave us the info.
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.
Prompted by clippy::needless_question_mark. Sometimes Ok(r?) is
needed to do automatic error conversion. I assume the lint checks for
that. Anyway, in these cases it's not needed.
There are a couple of places where we forgot to truncate our
return-buffer to its actual size, and instead returned a big bunch
of zeros. Found while writing the tests in the next commit.
Someday, we'll have ReadBuf and won't have to worry about these
things.
This commit puts the native-tls crate behind a feature. The feature
is off-by-default in the tor-rtcompat crate, but can be enabled
either from arti or arti-client.
There is an included script that I used to test that tor-rtcompat
could build and run its tests with all subsets of its features.
Closes#300
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson
Neel Chauhan
Orhun Parmaksız
Nick Mathewson
Jim Newsome
eta
trinity-1686a