Use same(1.44.1) tokio version across the project

[jbesraa]

resolves #1596

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 21.92%. Comparing base (7e09855) to head (67e63b6).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1603   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   21.92%   21.92%           
=======================================
  Files         135      135           
  Lines        9573     9573           
=======================================
  Hits         2099     2099           
  Misses       7474     7474           

Flag	Coverage Δ
binary_codec_sv2-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
binary_sv2-coverage	10.12% <ø> (ø)
bip32_derivation-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
buffer_sv2-coverage	37.68% <ø> (ø)
codec_sv2-coverage	0.03% <ø> (ø)
common_messages_sv2-coverage	0.25% <ø> (ø)
const_sv2-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
error_handling-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
framing_sv2-coverage	0.54% <ø> (ø)
jd_client-coverage	0.39% <ø> (ø)
jd_server-coverage	12.42% <ø> (ø)
job_declaration_sv2-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
key-utils-coverage	3.61% <ø> (ø)
mining-coverage	5.02% <ø> (ø)
mining_device-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
mining_proxy_sv2-coverage	1.18% <ø> (ø)
noise_sv2-coverage	8.63% <ø> (ø)
pool_sv2-coverage	7.21% <ø> (ø)
protocols	30.61% <ø> (ø)
roles	12.19% <ø> (ø)
roles_logic_sv2-coverage	15.22% <ø> (ø)
sv2_ffi-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
template_distribution_sv2-coverage	0.00% <ø> (ø)
translator_sv2-coverage	9.11% <ø> (ø)
utils	?
v1-coverage	4.36% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Shourya742]

Instead of making changes like these, we should focus on getting this merged: #1546.

[jbesraa]

Instead of making changes like these, we should focus on getting this merged: #1546.

#1546 is a profound change while this pr is just upgrading/aligning tokio versions. I dont see how they are related.
Also this is mentioned in the description about shared deps:

Specifying a workspace dependency is similar to package dependencies except:

1. Dependencies from this table cannot be declared as optional

2. [features](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html) declared in this table are additive with the features from [dependencies]

Which is a deal breaker IMO.

I would not block this one because of #1546, specially when we also have #1549 and others.

#1549 #1546 and others needs further discussions and consensus before we merge them.

[jbesraa]

Instead of making changes like these, we should focus on getting this merged: #1546.

#1546 is a profound change while this pr is just upgrading/aligning tokio versions. I dont see how they are related. Also this is mentioned in the description about shared deps:

Specifying a workspace dependency is similar to package dependencies except:

1. Dependencies from this table cannot be declared as optional

2. [features](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html) declared in this table are additive with the features from [dependencies]

Which is a deal breaker IMO.

I would not block this one because of #1546, specially when we also have #1549 and others.

#1549 #1546 and others needs further discussions and consensus before we merge them.

Moreover, currently we align shared dependencies between crates by adding them to stratum-common (see bitcoin and secp deps) so we would need to add that to the discussion as well. What I am saying here is that this PR scope is way smaller than those big changes.

[Shourya742]

Instead of making changes like these, we should focus on getting this merged: #1546.

#1546 is a profound change while this pr is just upgrading/aligning tokio versions. I dont see how they are related. Also this is mentioned in the description about shared deps:
Specifying a workspace dependency is similar to package dependencies except:

1. Dependencies from this table cannot be declared as optional

2. [features](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/features.html) declared in this table are additive with the features from [dependencies]

Which is a deal breaker IMO.
I would not block this one because of #1546, specially when we also have #1549 and others.
#1549 #1546 and others needs further discussions and consensus before we merge them.

Moreover, currently we align shared dependencies between crates by adding them to stratum-common (see bitcoin and secp deps) so we would need to add that to the discussion as well. What I am saying here is that this PR scope is way smaller than those big changes.

What I mean is that changes related to the unification of dependency versions are automatically resolved when any of the above-mentioned PRs get merged. Since these changes will eventually be removed within a couple of months, I don’t see the point in adding them, especially considering they are not blocking any of our current tasks.

[SV2-bot]

Hey @jbesraa, your PR cannot be rebased due to conflicts. Could you resolve them, please?

[SV2-bot]

Hey @jbesraa, your PR cannot be rebased due to conflicts. Could you resolve them, please?