Cargo nightly now checks whether a cfg option exists.
We need to declare the custom
options we use
and fix those that are wrong.
Signed-off-by: Kévin Commaille <zecakeh@tedomum.fr>
`notifications` were stored in the `StateChanges` struct, which made me think that they're then persisted in the database. It's not the case, they
were just stored there by convenience. This commit changes it to a parameter that's passed, as it's not too invasive and clearer that this is only
transient data.
This adds a new `StoreTransaction` type, that wraps a `StoreCache` and a `Store`. The idea is that it will allow write access to the `Store` (and maintains the cache at the same time), while the `Store::cache` method will only give read-only access to the store's content.
Another new data type is introduced, `PendingChanges`, that reflects `Changes` but for fields that are properly maintained in the `StoreCache` and that one can write in the `StoreTransaction`. In the future, it wouldn't be possible to use `save_pending_changes` from the outside of a `StoreTransaction` context.
The layering is the following:
- `Store` wraps the `DynCryptoStore`, contains a reference to a `StoreCache`.
- When read-only access is sufficient, one can get a handle to the cache with `Store::cache()`.
- When a write happens, then one can create a `StoreTransaction` (later, only one at a time will be allowed, by putting the `StoreCache` behind a `RwLock`; this has been deferred to not make the PR grow too much).
- Any field in the `StoreCache` will get a method to get a reference to the cached thing: it will either load from the DB if not cached, or return the previously cached value.
- Any field that can be written to will get a method to get a mutable reference in the `StoreTransaction`: it will either load from the cache into a `PendingChanges` scratch pad, or return the scratchpad temporary value.
- When a `StoreTransaction::commit()` happens, fields are backpropagated into the DB *and* the cache.
Then, this `StoreTransaction` is used to update a `ReadOnlyAccount` in multiple places (and usage of `ReadOnlyAccount` is minimized so as not to require a transaction or cache function call as much as possible). With this, the read-only account only exists transiently, and it's only stored long-term in the cache.
Followup PRs include:
- making the `ReadOnlyAccount` not cloneable
- remove inner mutability from the `ReadOnlyAccount`
- add a `RwLock` on the `StoreTransaction`
Part of https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk/issues/2624 + https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-rust-sdk/issues/2000.
---
* crypto: Replace some uses of `ReadOnlyAccount` with `StaticAccountData` and identify tests
* crypto: introduce `StoreTransaction` to modify a `ReadOnlyAccount`
* crypto: introduce `save_pending_changes`, aka `save_changes` v2
* crypto: Start using `StoreTransaction`s to save the account, get rid of `Store::save_account` + `Account::save`
* crypto: use `StoreTransaction` to save an account in `keys_for_upload`
* crypto: use `StoreTransaction` and the cache in more places
* crypto: remove `Account` from the `Changes` \o/
* crypto: remove last (test-only) callers of `Store::account()`
* crypto: move `ReadOnlyAccount` inside the cache only
* crypto: use `ReadOnlyAccount` and `Account` in fewer places
whenever we can use `StaticAccountData` in place.
* crypto: make tests rely less on OlmMachine
* crypto: Don't put the `ReadOnlyAccount` behind a RwLock just yet
+ clippy
Stores may race when performing writes, since in `save_changes` some data is pickled, and live across await points (it could be stale after an
await point). To prevent multiple threads racing when calling into `save_changes`, a new lock is introduced there.
This patch updates `chunk_large_query_over`. This function works great
when it's required to chunk some data over a query. However, if the
data don't need to be chunked, it is possible to get a quicker path that
doesn't involve 2 `Vec` allocations, nor a `split_off` of one `Vec`, nor
a `Vec::extend` (which move data in memory). The quicker path, which is
also the most likely to be hit, simply does a single `Vec` allocation,
and that's it.
Up until now, users had to listen for to-device events to check for
secrets that were received as an `m.secret.send` event.
This has a bunch of shortcomings:
1. Once the has been given to the consumer, it's gone and can't be
retrieved anymore. Secrets may get lost if an app restart happens
before the consumer decides what to do with it.
2. The consumer can't be sure if the event was received in a
secure manner.
This commit ads a inbox for our received secrets where we will long-term
store all secrets we receive until the user decides to delete them.
It's deemed fine to store all secrets, since we only accept secrets we
have requested and if they have been received from a verified device of
ours.
