| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| ... | |
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
rpc spec: Start to document method naming convention
Closes #1678
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2539
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
All but one of our current methods follows this convention,
and we're about to rename it.
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This is based on a suggestion from @diziet, but edited to say that:
- we will take this approach when possible, and that we're not making
a categorical promise.
- this approach only applies to stable fields.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
IIUC: Previously, `error.data` was meant to be the serialized error
object from Arti. As such, it was specified to be deliberately
unstable, and likely to change.
This didn't seem like such great idea, especially as we started to
come up with structured and stable data that we _did_ want to put in
`error.data`.
With this commit I'm taking a new approach to `error.data`.
Specifically:
* `error.data`, if present, is always an object.
* Unlike before, it can have multiple keys.
* The keys of `error.data` are always namespaced.
* There is a requirement that documentation exist for every key in
an`error.data` document, including the type, semantics, and
stability of its values.
There is also new "anticipated use of error.data" section
to clarify our plans:
* We plan to use error.data deliberately when it actually
serves a purpose.
* We don't plan to have an on-by-default serialization or Debug of
every Arti error. (If we wanted an optional one, there is a
short sketch of what it might look like.)
|
| |/
|
|
|
|
| |
This is *not* how we actually want the `data` field to behave!
But moving it as a separate commit will make it easier to see
what changes we do make.
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
rpc-meta-draft: describe compatibility rules and mechanisms
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2475
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
AIUI they mean the same thing
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
From a suggestion from @diziet
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This tries to memorialize the mechanism that @diziet and I came up
with and memorialized on #1634. Once this is merged I can implement
it.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This renames "client auth" to "restricted discovery" where appropriate.
Closes #1476
|
| |/
|
|
|
| |
This adds a note mentioning the new "restricted discovery" terminology
to the various docs that talk about client authorization.
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| | |
memquota: be more firm about avoiding panics, and tidy up docs
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2404
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
And remove the rest of the now-obsolete text.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This detect possibly-panicking operations.
Empirically this lint seems rather better now.
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
All of this is now documented in the lib.rs.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This sentence is very important piece of overall explanation, but
didn't make it into the crate level docs.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
All of this is now implemented. Delete the obsolete sketch.
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Update s101 numbers for Q2 2024
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2245
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Diziet prefers this terminology; we'll defer a reckoning here
till #849 is resolved.
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Instead of saying "no errors before authentication",
we now say "no syntax errors ever."
This should be easier to implement.
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
(This is obsoleted by arti-rpc-client-core.)
|
| | | | |
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
Notably, identifiers SHOULD be C identifiers,
and everything has a namespace.
Reserve "rpc" as a namespace for things that were previously
unnamespaced.
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
This is probably still far too informal, but it is better than our
previous documentation.
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
(Note what isn't implemented,
and one more kind of authentication we'll likely build someday.)
|
| | | | |
|
| | |/
|/|
| |
| | |
(Markdown convention deprecates having more than one top-level heading.)
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
See: tpo/team#313.
|
| |\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
doc/dev/notes: keymgr-porcelain: Add note about moving keymgr functions out of TorClient.
See merge request tpo/core/arti!2314
|
| | | | |
|
| | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
of TorClient.
This would a possible long-term fix for #1496.
|
| |/ /
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
This describes a couple of options for extending the config reloading
logic to support watching for changes in the
`restricted_disovery.key_dirs` directories.
Note: the options we have here are, in a sense, two extremes
* one is about refactoring some of the existing code into a
reusable component, and leaving most of the configuration logic
unchanged
* the other involves rethinking the entire config watching/reloading
mechanism to support watching for changes in arbitrary directories
I am leaning towards the simpler option, because I'm not sure the other
one is worth the added complexity (we currently only have a single use
case for it).
|