This solves the erratic test failures on model.TestIgnores by ensuring
that the ignore patterns are reloaded even in the face of unchanged
timestamps.
GitHub-Pull-Request: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/4208
Things like the package name "syncthing" was hardcoded, which is not
awesome. With this in place we can build debs called syncthing-discosrv,
syncthing-relaysrv and syncthing-relaypoolsrv. I don't actually intend
to build and publish the relaypoolsrv, but the others can be good. Using
the "syncthing-" prefix to make the obvious "apt-cache search syncthing"
actually show them etc.
GitHub-Pull-Request: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/4206
LGTM: AudriusButkevicius, calmh
Starting stuff from init() is an antipattern, and the innerProcess
variable isn't 100% reliable. We should sort out the other uses of it as
well in due time.
Also removing the hack on innerProcess as I happened to see it and the
affected versions are now <1% users.
GitHub-Pull-Request: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/4185
The folder already knew how to stop properly, but the fs.Walk() didn't
and can potentially take a very long time. This adds context support to
Walk and the underlying scanning stuff, and passes in an appropriate
context from above. The stop channel in model.folder is replaced with a
context for this purpose.
To test I added an infiniteFS that represents a large amount of data
(not actually infinite, but close) and verify that walking it is
properly stopped. For that to be implemented smoothly I moved out the
Walk function to it's own type, as typically the implementer of a new
filesystem type might not need or want to reimplement Walk.
It's somewhat tricky to test that this actually works properly on the
actual sendReceiveFolder and so on, as those are started from inside the
model and the filesystem isn't easily pluggable etc. Instead I've tested
that part manually by adding a huge folder and verifying that pause,
resume and reconfig do the right things by looking at debug output.
GitHub-Pull-Request: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/4117
So, when first implementing the database layer I added panics on every
unexpected error condition mostly to be sure to flush out bugs and
inconsistencies. Then it became sort of standard, and we don't seem to
have many bugs here any more so the panics are usually caused by things
like checksum errors on read. But it's not an optimal user experience to
crash all the time.
Here I've weeded out most of the panics, while retaining a few "can't
happen" ones like errors on marshalling and write that we really can't
recover from.
For the rest, I'm mostly treating any read error as "entry didn't
exist". This should mean we'll rescan the file and correct the info (if
scanning) or treat it as a new file and do conflict handling (when
pulling). In some cases things like our global stats may be slightly
incorrect until a restart, if a database entry goes suddenly missing
during runtime.
All in all, I think this makes us a bit more robust and friendly without
introducing too many risks for the user. If the database is truly toast,
probably many other things on the system will be toast as well...
GitHub-Pull-Request: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/4118
This adds a pattern validator to the GUI listen port field that checks
for port numbers 1024 and above. Also adds a help link pointing to the
(new) page talking about GUI listen port numbers. That page has
information on how to work around the restriction, in general terms.
Also changes the header from "GUI Listen Addresses" to the singular
version, because we only support one listen address today.
GitHub-Pull-Request: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/4116
Given the saveConfig() is async, it might not have happened before we
try to save the ignores and unpause. Likewise must wait for saving
ignores before unpausing or the scan might start before ignores are on
disk.
Javsacript <3
Harmonize how we use batches in the model, using ProtoSize() to judge
the actual weight of the entire batch instead of estimating. Use smaller
batches in the block map - I think we might have though that batch.Len()
in the leveldb was the batch size in bytes, but it's actually number of
operations.
GitHub-Pull-Request: https://github.com/syncthing/syncthing/pull/4114
