| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
First, run
```
git grep -l "^edition =" |
xargs perl -i -pe 's/^edition *=.*/edition = "2024"/;'
```
Second, manually verify that all Cargo.toml files have changed,
and nothing else has changed.
Third, run cargo fmt again.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In older versions of the rpc spec, this field held a serialized
version of the Arti error object. That's no longer the design: now
it provides a way for specific errors to include extra, specified,
machine-readable data. For more information see the section
"Errors" in rpc-meta-draft.md
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These are not regular ErrorKinds, since they can never occur in an
error that's meant to be returned from a Rust API like
`arti-client`. Instead, they only exist for errors returned from
RpcError.
(I can't find the place where we discussed this previously, but the
rationale is that if an ErrorKind never makes sense in response to
something that the user does from Rust, we should never have that be
an ErrorKind. The fact that the removed kinds do not actually
appear outside the RPC system suggests that this is reasonable.)
|
| |
|
|
| |
In some cases, the tor_error::ErrorKind names were nicer.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We'll use this to make RpcErrors directly, without having to go
through an error that implements HasKind.
Later, we'll add the ability to set the `data` fields on an RpcError.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This change will let us start removing the not-entirely-logical
`Rpc.*` variants from tor_error::ErrorKind.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is about to be a public competitor with tor_error::ErrorKind.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
These, like the other RPC-only error kinds, probably don't belong in
`tor-error`. But for now, that's where they all are, and moving
them is out of scope for this branch. See #1668.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We've wanted separate error codes for "no such method exists" and
"this method exists, but this object doesn't have it."
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Well, mostly correct. Our current serde implementation doesn't
tell us much about what went wrong with the object, so we can't
tell why we couldn't convert it into a Request.
Also, our output for the data field is not as the spec says:
we should bring them into conformance.
Part of #825.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
The field is called "kinds", it is a list, and it holds strings
beginning with "arti:".
|
| | |
|
| |
|
