Page MenuHomePhabricator

[services] Tunnelbroker - Using `rust::notifications` namespace for calling Rust from C++
ClosedPublic

Authored by max on Sep 29 2022, 7:38 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 5, 9:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 5, 9:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 5, 9:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 5, 9:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 5, 9:28 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Oct 23, 3:20 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Oct 19, 12:31 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Oct 10 2024, 5:09 PM

Details

Summary

This diff introduces changes using the rust::notifications namespace for calling Rust notification functions from C++.

At the moment in Tunnelbroker, we are calling the Rust function without using namespaces. The Rust functions are exposed as global to C++. The better way is to use namespaces in Rust code to expose it to C++ codebase.

Related Linear task: ENG-1894

Test Plan
  1. Service successfully built.
  2. Tests passed.

Diff Detail

Repository
rCOMM Comm
Branch
rust-use-namespace
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage

Event Timeline

max held this revision as a draft.
max edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
max added reviewers: michal, tomek.
max published this revision for review.Sep 29 2022, 7:44 AM
max added inline comments.
services/tunnelbroker/rust-lib/src/lib.rs
11–25

I didn't use a global namespace here now because of the adding a new namespace for the gRPC-related functions very soon and we need to distinguish them.

tomek added a subscriber: marcin.

@max please add @marcin as a reviewer for Rust / C++ diffs - he will add me as a blocking reviewer after the diff is accepted.

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
173

I feel like typedefs in a source file are kind of an anti pattern. Or maybe I'm just used to rust's import syntax.

not sure how @tomek feels

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
173

I agree with @jon that typedef should be defined in headers file. If we want to use them in other places in the code they should be defined in header files. Otherwise if we just want those types to be used locally in a source file we may probably use auto instead.

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
173

I'm not strictly against them - if they are local and increase readability, it's fine. An antipattern in C++, that should be avoided, is using using.

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
173

What's the downside of a typedef here?

max added inline comments.
services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
173

I feel like typedefs in a source file are kind of an anti pattern. Or maybe I'm just used to rust's import syntax.

not sure how @tomek feels

In general, yes, but it depends. In this case, it's used to make the code more readable because there are a long "train" of the namespace.

173

I'm not strictly against them - if they are local and increase readability, it's fine.

That's right - it's local, and it is used to increase the code readability instead of calling the long namespace.

An antipattern in C++, that should be avoided, is using using.

Agree! We can't make a namespace local but the typedef could.

173

What's the downside of a typedef here?

Personally, I don't see any downsides here, but the pros are:

  • Code readability is increased;
  • It's local;
  • It does allocate nothing because it's just an alias.

We have a really long name here and it's unreadable without some aliasing.

In D5263#155118, @tomek wrote:

@max please add @marcin as a reviewer for Rust / C++ diffs - he will add me as a blocking reviewer after the diff is accepted.

Ok, I'll do that ;)

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
173

Otherwise if we just want those types to be used locally in a source file we may probably use auto instead.

Typdef and Auto have different purposes and are not interchangeable:
typdef is a type alias, but auto is a type auto assigning.

marcin added a reviewer: tomek.

An antipattern in C++, that should be avoided, is using using.

Agreed. otherwise LGTM.

I'm not strongly opinionated about the typedef, because I don't think there's a strictly better way to do it.

services/tunnelbroker/src/Service/TunnelbrokerServiceImpl.cpp
173

What's the downside of a typedef here?

It's acting as an alias here, so instead of using the fully qualified rust::notifications::apnsReturnStatus, just apnsReturnStatus can be used.

A potential downside is just slightly increasing the things defined at this scope. But I don't think its worse than having to use the full path in this one case.

It's somewhat similar to the using <namespace> anti pattern, but that's usually a bigger problem because you could be introducing 1,000's of items at a scope.

I'm not a big fan of typedef too, but using fully qualified names here looks very ugly (looks like a Flutter-way ;) ).
If you guys think it looks ok and readable I'll remove the typdef here. I do not insist on it, it's just some prettifying.

I still don't see any downsides to the typedef

I think we should keep the typedef here - fully qualified names would reduce the readability,

Just to add something to the discussion, C++ guideline seems to prefer using over typedef for aliases https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#t43-prefer-using-over-typedef-for-defining-aliases. I think it is relevant mostly when aliasing function pointer types.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Oct 3 2022, 2:27 AM

Rebased on master changes.