| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These filters are meant to be used with, respectively, `Iterator::filter_map` and `StreamExt::filter_map`. The two operations are conceptually the same - they pass an item from the underlying sequence to a function that returns an option, drops the values for which the function returns `None`, and yields the value inside of `Some` in the resulting sequence.
However, `Iterator::filter_map` takes a function from the iterator elements to `Option<T>`. `StreamExt::filter_map` takes a function from the iterator elements to _a `Future` whose output is `Option<T>`_. As such, you can't easily use functions designed for one use case, for the other. You need an adapter - conventionally, `futures::ready`, if you have a non-async function and need an async one.
This provides two sets of sequence filters:
* `crate::test::fixtures::event` contains functions which return `Option` directly, and which are intended for use with `Iterator::filter_map`.
* `crate::test::fixtures::event::stream` contains lifted versions that return a `Future`, and which are intended for use with `StreamExt::filter_map`.
The lifting is done purely manually. I spent a lot of time writing clever-er versions before deciding on this; those were fun to write, but hell to read and not meaningfully better, and this is test support code, so we want it to be dumb and obvious. Complexity for the sake of intellectual satisfaction is a huge antifeature in this context.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This also found a bug! No live event was being emitted during invite accept. The only way to find out about invites was to reconnect.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, when a channel (message) was deleted, `hi` would send events to all _connected_ clients to inform them of the deletion, then delete all memory of the channel (message). Any disconnected client, on reconnecting, would not receive the deletion event, and would de-synch with the service. The creation events were also immediately retconned out of the event stream, as well.
With this change, `hi` keeps a record of deleted channels (messages). When replaying events, these records are used to replay the deletion event. After 7 days, the retained data is deleted, both to keep storage under control and to conform to users' expectations that deleted means gone.
To match users' likely intuitions about what deletion does, deleting a channel (message) _does_ immediately delete some of its associated data. Channels' names are blanked, and messages' bodies are also blanked. When the event stream is replayed, the original channel.created (message.sent) event is "tombstoned", with an additional `deleted_at` field to inform clients. The included client does not use this field, at least yet.
The migration is, once again, screamingingly complicated due to sqlite's limited ALTER TABLE … ALTER COLUMN support.
This change also contains capabilities that would allow the API to return 410 Gone for deleted channels or messages, instead of 404. I did experiment with this, but it's tricky to do pervasively, especially since most app-level interfaces return an `Option<Channel>` or `Option<Message>`. Redesigning these to return either `Ok(Channel)` (`Ok(Message)`) or `Err(Error::NotFound)` or `Err(Error::Deleted)` is more work than I wanted to take on for this change, and the utility of 410 Gone responses is not obvious to me. We have other, more pressing API design warts to address.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This will make it much easier to slot in new event types (login events!).
|
|
|
This separates the code that figures out what happened to an entity from the code that represents it to a user, and makes it easier to compute a snapshot at a point in time (for things like bootstrap). It also makes the internal logic a bit easier to follow, since it's easier to tell whether you're working with a point in time or with the whole recorded history.
This hefty.
|
