| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
The protocol here re-checks the caller's password, as a "I left myself logged in" anti-pranking check.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This helped me discover an organizational scheme I like more.
|
| |
|
