Upgrade tonic dependencies to 0.13.0 version (try 2)#7839
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
arrow
| # TODO: Remove in the next release | ||
| flight-sql-experimental = ["flight-sql"] | ||
| tls = ["tonic/tls"] | ||
| tls = ["tonic/tls-ring"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think if you add this, then users won't be able to choose "tonic/tls-aws-lc" because they're mutually exclusive nevermind, this is off by default. This would just be inconsistent and possibly confusing to only have a feature that turns on tonic/tls-ring but not tonic/tls-aws-lc, and someone using tonic/tls-aws-lc might go to turn on arrow-flight/tls and have a bad time.
So either arrow-flight should add:
tls-ring = ["tonic/tls-ring"]
tls-aws-lc = ["tonic/tls-aws-lc"]
or it should add nothing and assume feature unification from the user of arrow-flight also using tonic and configuring the feature with their use of tonic will take care of it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think adding nothing makes the most sense to me -- and let the user choose with their own feature. I will remove it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, I see there are examples and binaries that want tls
warning: invalid feature
tlsin required-features of targetflight_sql_client:tlsis not present in [features] section
I will then follow the pattern and rename the tls flags to match tonic
|
@Xuanwo or @sundy-li or @carols10cents or @rmn-boiko or @MichaelScofield -- can someone let me know if this PR looks ok to you / would work in your use cases? |
| let listener = TcpListener::bind("0.0.0.0:0").await.unwrap(); | ||
| let addr = listener.local_addr().unwrap(); | ||
| let incoming = TcpIncoming::from_listener(listener, true, None).unwrap(); | ||
| let incoming = TcpIncoming::from(listener); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Previously the TcpIncoming in tonic 0.12 the nodelay was explicitly set to true; however, here the default is None. Maybe it's better to align the behavior.
|
Let's just get this one in Thanks again @mbrobbel and @MichaelScofield |
4 participants
Which issue does this PR close?
56.0.0(July 2025) #7395Rationale for this change
Let's update tonic to the latest
Given the open and unresolved questions on @rmn-boiko's PR #7377 from @Xuanwo and @sundy-li, I thought a new PR would result in a faster resolution.
What changes are included in this PR?
This PR is based on #7495 from @MichaelScofield -- I resolved some merge conflicts and updated Cargo.toml in the integration tests
Are these changes tested?
Yes, by CI
Are there any user-facing changes?
New dependency version