| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
The Default impl was the only call site for new()
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This just clones the fields. It is not clear to me why it was
written this way in be86df631dec
Remove anyhow dependency from tor-retry, and rename it to retry-error
Previously, I think, RetryError wasn't Clone.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When I wrote this, I arranged to skip dumping the field `pending`.
This must have been because I thought that either
(a) PendingEntry couldn't `#[derive(Debug)]` (but it can)
and/or
(b) Some of the fields of PendingEntry ought not to be dumped because
they might contain (eg) packet data. But I think they don't: there's
just the spec, and the Result which is (basically) a Circ.
I tried preseving something closer to the original using educe, but
educe gets somehow tangled up with the generics, and the result fails
to compile. I haven't investigated this further.
|
| |
|
|
| |
No functional change.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm going to change the code that does this, so add a test first
to check the output doesn't change.
At some point we should have more RSA tests.
|
| |
|
|
| |
See !352
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Disable clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr
See merge request tpo/core/arti!352
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
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.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
chutney/setup: Wait for port 9150 to open after launching arti
Closes #367
See merge request tpo/core/arti!370
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This is not a replacement for a real startup protocol, but it may
help repair our CI.
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| |\ \ \ |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
|
| | |\ \ \ |
|
| |\| | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | |/ /
| |/| | |
|
| |\ \ \ \
| |_|/ /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Refactor multiple runtime support in order to clean up documentation
Closes #326
See merge request tpo/core/arti!364
|
| | |\ \ \
| |/ / /
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Conflicts:
crates/arti-hyper/examples/hyper.rs
Trivially resolved. Hyper example still works.
|
| |\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Implement TLS in arti-hyper
See merge request tpo/core/arti!355
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
The *earlier* versions of these crates pull in *dependencies* that
violate our MSRV policy by requiring a *later* version of Rust.
Empirically, env_logger 0.5.4 would be enough, but practice here seems
to be to just say "cargo update".
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
As per
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/355#note_2781816
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
I disagree with all these. Whatever.
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
As per
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/355#note_2781820
|
| | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
As per
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/merge_requests/355#note_2781819
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
