| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| |
|
|
|
| |
Remove all `use` statements for `TryFrom` and `TryInto`. These are
now redundant in Rust 2021.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Including supporting machinery, new kind field, etc.
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Provide, and use From impl for InternalError
See merge request tpo/core/arti!315
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Adding this autoconversion is quite safe since every error generation
site is explicit and has its own context, and we don't really need to
add more.
This simplifies the code and will simplify future work.
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Change deny(clippy::all) to warn(clippy::all).
Closes #338
See merge request tpo/core/arti!306
|
| | |/
| |
| |
| | |
Closes #338.
|
| |\ \ |
|
| | |/
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
We should not generally explicitly specify a kind for errors which
contain a more detailed error which itself has a kind. Stating the
kind literally is a latent bug, which becomes a real bug if the
contained type's kind changes or starts to vary.
(There may be exceptions to this principle but this isn't one of
them.)
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Split up ErrorKind::ProtocolViolation
See merge request tpo/core/arti!312
|
| | |/ |
|
| | | |
|
| |/ |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Refactor the Error type to remove the yucky internal hidden Truncated
variant. Instead, there's now an embedded tor_bytes::Error value.
If that tor_bytes::Error is Truncated, we bubble it up when we convert our
handshake result to the nested error struct.
Thus there is still (sadly) a variant of tor_socksproto::Error
that shouldn't be exposed to user code. But refactoring every
inner method under handshake.rs seemed like a bad idea: once we're using
Result<Result<..>>, the ? operator no longer helps us much.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I'm not in love with this solution; the others just seem a bit ugly
too.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
(This error isn't yet wrapped in TorError, but it will be eventually
when we implement socks proxy and PT support.)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This was just a matter of adding a call to one function.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
This will cause some pain for now, but now is really the best time
to do this kind of thing.
|
