| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Each domain module that exposes handlers does so through a `handlers` child module, ideally as a top-level symbol that can be plugged directly into Axum's `MethodRouter`. Modules could make exceptions to this - kill the doctrinaire inside yourself, after all - but none of the API modules that actually exist need such exceptions, and consistency is useful.
The related details of request types, URL types, response types, errors, &c &c are then organized into modules under `handlers`, along with their respective tests.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
HTTP routes are now defined in a single, unified module, pulling them out of the topical modules they were formerly part of.
This is intended to improve the navigability of the codebase. Previously, finding the handler corresponding to a specific endpoint required prior familiarity, though in practice you could usually guess from topic area. Now, all routes are defined in `crate::routes`.
Other than changing visibility, I've avoided making changes to the handlers at the ends of those routes.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Notably, one of them was hiding a real (if unreachable) bug, by converting a "the token you have presented is not valid" scenario into an internal server error.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There are a couple of migration suggestions from `cargo fix --edition` that I have deliberately skipped, which are intended to make sure that the changes to `if let` scoping don't bite us. They don't, I'm pretty sure, and if I turn out to be wrong, I'd rather fix the scoping issues (as they arise) than use `match` (`cargo fix --edition`'s suggestion).
This change also includes a bulk reformat and a clippy cleanup.
NOTA BENE: As this requires a new Rust toolchain, you'll need to update Rust (`rustup update`, normally) or the server won't build. This also applies to the Debian builder Docker image; it'll need to be rebuilt (from scratch, pulling its base image again) as well.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There's no good reason to use an empty string as your login name, or to use one so long as to annoy others. Names beginning or ending with whitespace, or containing runs of whitespace, are also a technical problem, so they're also prohibited.
This change does not implement [UTS #39], as I haven't yet fully understood how to do so.
[UTS #39]: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
* A `cookie::Identity` (`IdentityCookie`) is a specialized CookieJar for working with identities.
* An `Identity` is a token/login pair.
I hope for this to be a bit more legible.
In service of this, `Login` is no longer extractable. You have to get an identity.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Canonicalization does two things:
* It prevents duplicate names that differ only by case or only by normalization/encoding sequence; and
* It makes certain name-based comparisons "case-insensitive" (generalizing via Unicode's case-folding rules).
This change is complicated, as it means that every name now needs to be stored in two forms. Unfortunately, this is _very likely_ a breaking schema change. The migrations in this commit perform a best-effort attempt to canonicalize existing channel or login names, but it's likely any existing channels or logins with non-ASCII characters will not be canonicalize correctly. Since clients look at all channel names and all login names on boot, and since the code in this commit verifies canonicalization when reading from the database, this will effectively make the server un-usuable until any incorrectly-canonicalized values are either manually canonicalized, or removed
It might be possible to do better with [the `icu` sqlite3 extension][icu], but (a) I'm not convinced of that and (b) this commit is already huge; adding database extension support would make it far larger.
[icu]: https://sqlite.org/src/dir/ext/icu
For some references on why it's worth storing usernames this way, see <https://www.b-list.org/weblog/2018/nov/26/case/> and the refernced talk, as well as <https://www.b-list.org/weblog/2018/feb/11/usernames/>. Bennett's treatment of this issue is, to my eye, much more readable than the referenced Unicode technical reports, and I'm inclined to trust his opinion given that he maintains a widely-used, internet-facing user registration library for Django.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This normalizes the following values:
* login names
* passwords
* channel names
* message bodies, because why not
The goal here is to have a canonical representation of these values, so that, for example, the service does not inadvertently host two channels whose names are semantically identical but differ in the specifics of how diacritics are encoded, or two users whose names are identical.
Normalization is done on input from the wire, using Serde hooks, and when reading from the database. The `crate::nfc::String` type implements these normalizations (as well as normalizing whenever converted from a `std::string::String` generally).
This change does not cover:
* Trying to cope with passwords that were created as non-normalized strings, which are now non-verifiable as all the paths to verify passwords normalize the input.
* Trying to ensure that non-normalized data in the database compares reasonably to normalized data. Fortunately, we don't _do_ very many string comparisons (I think only login names), so this isn't a huge deal at this stage. Login names will probably have to Get Fixed later on, when we figure out how to handle case folding for login name verification.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In general:
* If the client can only assume the response is immediately valid (mostly, login creation, where the client cannot monitor the event stream), then 200 Okay, with data describing the server's view of the request.
* If the client can monitor for completion by watching the event stream, then 202 Accepted, with data describing the server's view of the request.
This comes on the heels of a comment I made on Discord:
> hrm
>
> creating a login: 204 No Content, no body
> sending a message: 202 Accepted, no body
> creating a channel: 200 Okay, has a body
>
> past me, what were you on
There wasn't any principled reason for this inconsistency; it happened as the endpoints were written at different times and with different states of mind.
|
| |
|
