* Remove content_length since it'll be overwritten by the response body. FIXES#1439
* Add setting of Content-Length to the no_chunking function
* Add changes and migration documentations
* Update MIGRATION.md
Co-authored-by: Yuki Okushi <huyuumi.dev@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Rob Ede <robjtede@icloud.com>
Co-authored-by: Yuki Okushi <huyuumi.dev@gmail.com>
For allowing a more ergonomic use and better integration on the
ecosystem, this adds the `std::error::Error` `impl` for our custom
errors.
We intent to drop this hand made code once `derive_more` finishes the
addition of the Error derive support[1]. Until that is available, we
need to live with that.
1. https://github.com/JelteF/derive_more/issues/92
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
This ended up getting reverted by #1367, which re-introduced an unsound
use of `Pin::new_unchecked`
See my original PR #1374 for the reasoning behind this change.
- Convert MessageBody to accept Pin in poll_next
- add CHANGES and increase versions aligned to semver
- update crates to accomodate MessageBody Pin change
- fix tests and dependencies
* Moved actix-http for actix from actix crate
* remove resolver feature
* renamed actix feature to actor
* fixed doc attr for actors, add documentation
This removes the last uses of unsafe `Pin` functions in actix-web.
This PR adds a `Pin<Box<_>>` wrapper to `DispatcherState::Upgrade`,
`State::ExpectCall`, and `State::ServiceCall`.
The previous uses of the futures `State::ExpectCall` and `State::ServiceCall`
were Undefined Behavior - a future was obtained from `self.expect.call`
or `self.service.call`, pinned on the stack, and then immediately
returned from `handle_request`. The only alternative to using `Box::pin`
would be to refactor `handle_request` to write the futures directly into
their final location, or avoid polling them before they are returned.
The previous use of `DispatcherState::Upgrade` doesn't seem to be
unsound. However, having data pinned inside an enum that we
`std::mem::replace` would require some careful `unsafe` code to ensure
that we never call `std::mem::replace` when the active variant contains
pinned data. By using `Box::pin`, we any possibility of future
refactoring accidentally introducing undefined behavior.
Co-authored-by: Yuki Okushi <huyuumi.dev@gmail.com>
Fixes#1321
A better fix would be to change `MessageBody` to take a `Pin<&mut
Self>`, rather than a `Pin<&mut Self>`. This will avoid requiring the
use of `Box` for all consumers by allowing the caller to determine how
to pin the `MessageBody` implementation (e.g. via stack pinning).
However, doing so is a breaking change that will affect every user of
`MessageBody`. By pinning the inner stream ourselves, we can fix the
undefined behavior without breaking the API.
I've included @sebzim4500's reproduction case as a new test case.
However, due to the nature of undefined behavior, this could pass (and
not segfault) even if underlying issue were to regress.
Unfortunately, until rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines#148 is resolved,
it's not even possible to write a Miri test that will pass when the bug
is fixed.
Co-authored-by: Yuki Okushi <huyuumi.dev@gmail.com>
