[feature] #3383: Implement a macro that parses a socket address at compile time

[DCNick3]

Linked issue

Closes #3383

Limitations

This can't replace all uses of the existing socket_addr! macro, as it parses only literal addresses. Some of the socket_addr! usages use an expression as port number:

iroha/core/test_network/src/lib.rs

Line 598 in 19984d9

peer.p2p_address = socket_addr!(127,0,0,1; port);

. Supporting this is possible, but would require a more complicated parser.

As 5/11 usages of the original macro use it, it probably doesn't make sense to merge it without support for variable ports

It also doesn't support hostname addresses, but they are not used anywhere except in the doc-test for the socket_addr! macro. Probably fine going without it, but should be relatively easy to implement if needed.

Checklist

• Parse IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
• Allow usage of arbitrary expressions in port position
• Replace old usages of socket_addr! macro

[Arjentix]

Congratulations with your first PR! Nice!

In PR description you say that custom port is not supported. But by looking at the code it looks like it is supported, no?

[DCNick3]

In PR description you say that custom port is not supported. But by looking at the code it looks like it is supported, no?

I forgot the link to an example..

iroha/core/test_network/src/lib.rs

Line 598 in 19984d9

peer.p2p_address = socket_addr!(127,0,0,1; port);

Basically, it uses an arbirary expression instead of an integer literal for port. This won't work with the "stringify and parse it" approach

[Arjentix]

So what blocks you to undraft this PR?

[DCNick3]

So what blocks you to undraft this PR?

Using expressions as port numbers, which is done a lot throughout the codebase & replacing the uses of declarative sock_addr!. Will probably tackle this tomorrow

[0x009922]

LGTM. Some comments:

• I wonder, which syntax would you use for expressions interpolation? I have a couple of ideas:

  // format-style?
  socket_addr!("127.0.0.1:{}", port);
  
  // something custom?
  socket_addr!(127.0.0.1:~port);

• Will you replace all usages of the old macro?

[0x009922]

Also, please make meaningful checklist in the PR's description (the current one is template for external contributors, AFAIC). It might make sense to move some TODOs from your description/code there.

[DCNick3]

I wonder, which syntax would you use for expressions interpolation? I have a couple of ideas:

I think it's possible to parse the natural syntax: socket_addr!(127.0.0.1:port). Everything before the colon token is converted to string and parsed as an IP address, while everything after the colon would be parsed as an expression.

Will you replace all usages of the old macro?

Yes, this is what I am planning to do

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 5473214665

• 183 of 195 (93.85%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• 329 unchanged lines in 11 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 59.532%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
core/test_network/src/lib.rs	0	4	0.0%
primitives/derive/src/socket_addr.rs	166	174	95.4%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
data_model/src/transaction.rs	1	47.66%
wasm_codec/derive/src/lib.rs	1	90.71%
tools/kagami/src/main.rs	3	2.26%
cli/derive/src/lib.rs	5	93.2%
cli/src/samples.rs	5	0%
ffi/derive/src/util.rs	6	94.34%
version/derive/src/lib.rs	11	91.44%
config/src/client.rs	13	70.42%
data_model/src/block.rs	30	42.21%
wasm_builder/src/lib.rs	95	41.67%

Totals
Change from base Build 5423219773:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	19889
Relevant Lines:	33409

---

💛 - Coveralls

[DCNick3]

rustfmt wants socket_addr!(127.0.0.1: port); to be formatted as socket_addr!(127.0.0 .1: port);...

There is an option to exclude a certain macro invocations from being formatted, but

1. the config option parsing seems broken skip_macro_invocations: Cannot configure from rustfmt.toml rust-lang/rustfmt#5816
2. the toolchain used in CI doesn't support it

I guess we would have to live with this ugly formatting for some time?