https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/issues/30972 brought up another
case where our context is not enough to track the actual source of the
issue: we get a general top-level error without inner error.
The reason for this was `.ok_or_else(|| anyhow!("failed to read HEAD
SHA"))?; ` on the top level.
The PR finally reworks the way we use anyhow to reduce such issues (or
at least make it simpler to bubble them up later in a fix).
On top of that, uses a few more anyhow methods for better readability.
* `.ok_or_else(|| anyhow!("..."))`, `map_err` and other similar error
conversion/option reporting cases are replaced with `context` and
`with_context` calls
* in addition to that, various `anyhow!("failed to do ...")` are
stripped with `.context("Doing ...")` messages instead to remove the
parasitic `failed to` text
* `anyhow::ensure!` is used instead of `if ... { return Err(...); }`
calls
* `anyhow::bail!` is used instead of `return Err(anyhow!(...));`
Release Notes:
- N/A
Reverts zed-industries/zed#30812
This PR broke nightly builds on linux by adding an OpenSSL dependency to
the `remote_server` binary, which failed to link when building against
musl.
Release Notes:
- N/A
Closes#28792
supersedes #28854
- Adds support for Socks V4 Identification using a userid, and
Authorization using a username and password on Socks V5.
- Added tests for parsing various Socks proxy urls.
- Added a test for making sure a misconfigured socks proxy url doesn't
expose the user by connecting directly as a fallback.
Release Notes:
- Added support for identification and authorization when using a sock
proxy
Closes#27641
This PR fixes invalid proxy URIs being registered despite the URI not
being a valid proxy URI.
Whilst investigating #27641 , I noticed that currently any proxy URI
passed to `RequestClient::proxy_and_user_agent` will be assigned to the
created client, even if the URI is not a valid proxy URI. Given a test
as an example:
We create an URI here and pass it as a proxy to
`ReqwestClient::proxy_and_user_agent`:
https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/main/crates/reqwest_client/src/reqwest_client.rs#L272-L273
In `ReqwestClient::proxy_and_user_agent`we take the proxy parameter here
9b40770e9f/crates/reqwest_client/src/reqwest_client.rs (L46)
and set it unconditionally here:
9b40770e9f/crates/reqwest_client/src/reqwest_client.rs (L62)
, not considering at all whether the proxy was successfully created
above. Concluding, we currently do not actually check whether a proxy
was successfully created, but rather whether an URI is equal to itself,
which trivially holds. The existing test for a malformed proxy URI
9b40770e9f/crates/reqwest_client/src/reqwest_client.rs (L293-L297)
does not check whether invalid proxies cause an error, but rather checks
whether `http::Uri::from_static` panics on an invalid URI, [which it
does as
documented](https://docs.rs/http/latest/http/uri/struct.Uri.html#panics).
Thus, the tests currently do not really check anything proxy-related and
invalid proxies are assigned as valid proxies.
---
This PR fixes the behaviour by considering whether the proxy was
actually properly parsed and only assigning it if that is the case.
Furthermore, it improves logging in case of errors so issues like the
linked one are easier to debug (for the linked issue, the log will now
include that the proxy schema is not supported in the logs).
Lastly, it also updates the test for a malformed proxy URI. The test now
actually checks that malformed proxy URIs are not registered for the
client rather than testing the `http` crate.
The update also initially caused the [test for a `socks4a`
proxy](9b40770e9f/crates/reqwest_client/src/reqwest_client.rs (L280C1-L282C50))
to fail. This happened because the reqwest-library introduced supports
for `socks4a` proxies in [version
0.12.13](https://github.com/seanmonstar/reqwest/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#v01213).
Thus, this PR includes a bump of the reqwest library to add proper
support for socks4a proxies.
Release Notes:
- Added support for socks4a proxies.
---------
Co-authored-by: Peter Tripp <peter@zed.dev>
We're seeing panics caused by a buggy implementation of AsyncWrite
that is being passed to rustls:
https://github.com/rustls/rustls/issues/2316#issuecomment-2662838186
One hypothesis was that we're using (comparatively) non-standard async
tools for connecting over websockets; so this attempts to make us be
(comparitvely) more standard.
Release Notes:
- N/A
