| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| | | | |
|
| |/ / |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Use a pinned compiler version to run cargo audit
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2289
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This invalidates the cache. This may not be strictly necessary, but
it will make sure that the new pinned image is used in the CI run *for
this MR*.
|
| |/ /
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This avoids CI failures like this
https://gitlab.torproject.org/nickm/arti/-/jobs/617654
arising from situations like this
cargo-audit install fails with rust 1.80
https://github.com/rustsec/rustsec/issues/1217
error[E0282]: type annotations needed for Box<_>
https://github.com/time-rs/time/issues/693
IMO we should pin many of the other images too but I suspect that may
be controversial. I'm hoping that pinning this one to get CI working
is uncontroversial (perhaps only on a temporary basis).
The other way to solve this would be to remove --locked which IMO is
going in the wrong direction, by exposing us to more rather than fewer
uncontrolled inputs from our upstreams.
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Fix new warnings from nightly clippy
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2288
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
(This will either become used later, or we will remove it;
the TODO RPC will remind us.)
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This warning suggests using `[a,b]` as a Pattern
when it sees a search for `|ch| ch == a || ch == b`.
(All of our supported rust versions allow this kind of Pattern.)
|
| |/ /
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This warning complains when we say `where T: SomeTrait + ?Sized`
when `SomeTrait` is inherently Sized.
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
rpclib: Use i64 rather than u64 for request IDs.
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2279
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This makes it conform to the spec and match arti-rpcserver.
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
rpcbase: Fix most TODO RPC comments.
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2284
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Per discussion, this field isn't really specified in a way that lets
us fill it sensibly at the moment. So for now, we're going to just
omit it.
Additionally, we said that we'd Report on our errors; this branch
changes the implementation of RpcError to do that.
Question: Will the blanket implementation for Into<RpcError> make
it harder to re-add a Data field later on if we want to do so?
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
It is no longer necessary to say, for every RPC method,
that its error type is RpcError.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
These methods were defined on DispatchTable, and then replaced by
top-level functions in the crate. (The reason for using top-level
functions instead is so that we get the locking on the dispatch
table correct.)
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The duplication is only a few lines. I've looked into a couple of
ways for removing it, but they make the code flow even less clear.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
We have decided not to remove the "anybody can define methods"
property. This commit documents the consequences, and warns
extenders away from some really bad ideas.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
These functions are called rarely enough that it is probably okay
for the ergonomics to be a bit verbose.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
We've wanted separate error codes for "no such method exists" and
"this method exists, but this object doesn't have it."
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This change would take some serde magic that is probably not worth it.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
(There is no longer such a thing as a "pseudomethod.")
|
| |\ \ \ \
| |/ / /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | | |
tor-memquota: Provide StreamUnobtrusivePeeker
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2280
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
See
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/2280#note_3051134
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
As per
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/2280#note_3051270
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
As per
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/2280#note_3051268
|
| | | | | |
|
| |/ / /
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
I'm not particularly pleased with this name. We need names for both
the type, and the trait we'll almost certainly want to introduce in
the future.
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
rpclib: Add initial unit tests
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2277
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
The "complex" test here is fairly involved, since it tries to detect
deadlocks and race conditions by using multiple threads and
answering requests out of order.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This turns out not to be necessary.
|
| | | | | |
|
| |/ / /
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
I hadn't been sure that we wanted to do this, since arti is
forgiving about its inputs, but IIRC Diziet was in favor of this,
and it _does_ make it easier to write tests.
|
| |\ \ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
tor-memquota: HasMemoryCost trait, and type-safe methods
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2282
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Trying to write comprehensive tests for the errors showed that these
impls were missing.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This will make testing easier.
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Bug found in review:
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/2282#note_3051101
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Our stream wrapper is going to want this. It's fiddly enough that
doing it as a standalone facility seems sensible.
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
