Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Various dependency updates #265

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jun 1, 2023
Merged

Various dependency updates #265

merged 11 commits into from
Jun 1, 2023

Conversation

mcginty
Copy link
Collaborator

@mcginty mcginty commented May 31, 2023

This was a long time coming, and I figured I might as well be the one to take care of some of the boring stuff :).

@mcginty mcginty requested review from strohel and bschwind May 31, 2023 02:33
@mcginty mcginty force-pushed the netlink-dep-updates branch from 7d1131c to ca01307 Compare May 31, 2023 02:41
Comment on lines 7 to 11
netlink-sys = "0.8.5"
netlink-packet-core = "0.5"
netlink-packet-generic = "0.3.2"
netlink-packet-route = "0.15.0"
netlink-packet-utils = "0.5.2"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Was there something released which requires us to specify the patch versions?

Copy link
Member

@strohel strohel May 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah this reminds me a discussion with @goodhoko in tonarino/acoustic_profiler#12 (comment).

As innernet is shipped as a binary and not a library, I don't think we need to aim for maximum possible version range for dependencies (which is tedious if done correctly, per reasoning in the linked thread). So I'm cool with specifying also the patch versions. But not saying I'd prefer it - we have Cargo.lock for reproducibility/tracking known-good versions.

Only thing that tickles my OCD is saying 0.15.0 instead of 0.15 (these 2 are strictly equivalent), but OTOH that is consistent with other lines..

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've gotten into the habit after discussions at work about this - specifying a higher and more specific semver prevents any bugs in previous versions from showing up when cargo decides for whatever reason to use it instead. For example, I actually had a bug with an earlier patch release in the netlink crate family not compiling.

Happy to get rid of that extra '0' for you @strohel :).

Copy link
Member

@bschwind bschwind left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes look good and my testing on macos was fine. Just a few questions about patch versions and some minor code changes.

shared/src/netlink.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
wireguard-control/src/backends/kernel.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
wireguard-control/Cargo.toml Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@strohel strohel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was long overdue, thanks a lot! Just adding some questions and follow-ups to Brian's comments.

@@ -1170,7 +1169,7 @@ fn print_peer(peer: &PeerState, short: bool, level: usize) {

fn main() {
let opts = Opts::parse();
util::init_logger(opts.verbose);
util::init_logger(opts.verbose as u64);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: we can/should change init_logger() signature instead

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doy - left that in while I was just playing around with clap changes. Changed.

Comment on lines 7 to 11
netlink-sys = "0.8.5"
netlink-packet-core = "0.5"
netlink-packet-generic = "0.3.2"
netlink-packet-route = "0.15.0"
netlink-packet-utils = "0.5.2"
Copy link
Member

@strohel strohel May 31, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah this reminds me a discussion with @goodhoko in tonarino/acoustic_profiler#12 (comment).

As innernet is shipped as a binary and not a library, I don't think we need to aim for maximum possible version range for dependencies (which is tedious if done correctly, per reasoning in the linked thread). So I'm cool with specifying also the patch versions. But not saying I'd prefer it - we have Cargo.lock for reproducibility/tracking known-good versions.

Only thing that tickles my OCD is saying 0.15.0 instead of 0.15 (these 2 are strictly equivalent), but OTOH that is consistent with other lines..

shared/src/netlink.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@bschwind bschwind left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM again, thanks!

@mcginty mcginty merged commit 33cee12 into main Jun 1, 2023
@mcginty mcginty deleted the netlink-dep-updates branch June 1, 2023 06:25
Copy link
Member

@strohel strohel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Post-merge LGTM++, thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants