| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This lets us remove a few TODOs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is behind a feature flag, since it isn't needed for pure
clients: only onion services and relays need this.
I've named the object that constructs these certs
`Ed25519CertConstructor` because it doesn't follow the builder
pattern exactly: mainly because you can't get an Ed25519Cert out of
it. _That_ part is necessary because we require that an Ed25519Cert
should only exist if the certificate was found to be well-signed
with the right public key.
Closes #511.
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Fix clippy nightly again
See merge request tpo/core/arti!603
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
Update all lint blocks
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Some of these were for decoding particular objects (we now say
what kind of objects), and some were unrelated tor_cert errors that
for some reason we had shoved into a tor_bytes::Error.
There is now a separate tor_cert::CertError type, independent from
tor_cert's use of `tor_bytes::Error` for parsing errors.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
(Not sure how we missed this before. This is part of making more of
tor-netdoc tested.)
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
From running add_warning, with manual picking of the right
hunks/lines.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This was the result of:
maint/add_warning crates/*/src/{lib,main}.rs
and then manually curating the results.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Closes #338.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We want to only use TODO in the codebase for non-blockers, and open
tickets for anything that is a bigger blocker than a TODO. These
XXXXs seem like definite non-blockers to me.
Part of arti#231.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
This will cause some pain for now, but now is really the best time
to do this kind of thing.
|
