Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(deps): update module github.com/multiformats/go-multiaddr to v0.15.0 #862

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

renovate[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@renovate renovate bot commented Feb 24, 2025

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Adoption Passing Confidence
github.com/multiformats/go-multiaddr v0.14.0 -> v0.15.0 age adoption passing confidence

Release Notes

multiformats/go-multiaddr (github.com/multiformats/go-multiaddr)

v0.15.0

Compare Source

Breaking Changes

  • There is no Multiaddr interface type.
  • Multiaddr is now a concrete type of []Component. Not an interface.
  • Empty Multiaddrs should be checked len(ma) == 0, exactly how slices should be checked with len(s) == 0 rather than s == nil.
  • Components do not implement Multiaddr as there is no Multiaddr to implement. The do implement a Multiaddrer interface that lets them convert to Multiaddrs.
  • Multiaddr can no longer be a key in a Map. If you want unique Multiaddrs, use string(Multiaddr.Bytes()) or Multiaddr.String() as the key, otherwise you can use the pointer value *Multiaddr.

Why?

This library has had multiple issues related to Multiaddr being an interface. Many methods use and return nil as the zero value, which behaves poorly when the user forgets to do a nil check on every returned value and attempts to call a method on the nil pointer. For example, using Split to split a Multiaddr and then using Join to rebuild the original Multiaddr historically would panic in case one side of the split was nil. Using an interface also leads to incorrect usages of == to check if two Multiaddrs were equal (would only work for pointer equality) and, likewise, incorrectly using Multiaddr as a key for a map.

Using an interface is typically done to provide a consistent API surface for multiple implementing types. In practice however, the Multiaddr interface was only implemented for multiaddr and component (with arguably some awkwardness when using a component as a Multiaddr).

The better approach is to use a concrete type for a Multiaddr. This lets pointer receiver methods work even if the pointer is nil, since the compiler already knows which function to call. Most methods now take a value rather than a pointer which avoids the issue of a nil pointer dereference completely.

What's changed

v0.15 refactors the codebase to make it much harder to hit nil pointer dereference panics.

It does so by taking a different approach to how we've treated multiaddrs in the past. Instead of attempting to make them a general datastructure, we focus on treating them as just an encoding scheme. Users of multiaddrs are expected to parse the multiaddr into some struct that is suitable for their use case, and use the multiaddr form when interoperating. By treating Multiaddrs as just an encoding scheme we can make a number of simplifications in the codebase. Specifically we now:

  • Remove the Multiaddr interface.
  • Make Multiaddr a concrete type of []Component

Migration

Refer to ./v015-MIGRATION.md for breaking changes and migration tips

Full Changelog: multiformats/go-multiaddr@v0.14.0...v0.15.0


Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants