mirrors/arti.git/crates/tor-linkspec/src, branch arti-v0.6.0

tor-linkspec: Stop using infallible writers.

2022-07-11T15:18:51Z

Convert each write_onto_infallible implementation into write_onto.

2022-07-11T15:18:51Z

Rename "write" methods on tor-bytes to "write_infallible".

2022-07-11T15:18:51Z

This comprises four renames: ``` write_onto -> write_onto_infallible write_into -> write_into_infallible write -> write_infallible writer_and_consume -> write_and_consume_infallible. ``` The rest of this branch will be concerned with replacing these `_infallible` methods with ones that return a `Result`. This is part of #513.

ChanMgr: errors: attribute errors to correct address.

2022-07-06T15:51:28Z

Even when keys are relevant, we still don't want to attribute errors to a set of addresses when we have a single address that we're connected with.

Run maint/add_warning crates/*/src/{lib,main}.rs

2022-06-23T18:15:42Z

Update all lint blocks

lints: Add let_unit_value allow to all crates

2022-05-31T14:23:52Z

From running add_warning, with manual picking of the right hunks/lines.

lints: Add lint block delimiters to every crate

2022-05-31T12:00:31Z

This was the result of: maint/add_warning crates/*/src/{lib,main}.rs and then manually curating the results.

Resolve the new `derive_partial_eq_without_eq` lint.

2022-05-23T16:55:37Z

It's a little overzealous sometimes, but it's mostly to the good.

squash! Bump every crate's edition to 2021.

2022-04-25T17:06:26Z

Remove all `use` statements for `TryFrom` and `TryInto`. These are now redundant in Rust 2021.

Disable clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr

2022-02-24T18:15:44Z

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 to Something: Clone, or vice versa.