chore(swarm): Remove deprecated functions

[umgefahren]

Description

Remove functions deprecated in 0.41.0.

Links to any relevant issues

Follows from: #3097 and #3119

Open Questions

None

Change checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• A changelog entry has been made in the appropriate crates

[jxs]

Hi Hannes, looks good on my end! Only the CHANGELOG.md's changes are missing, check here for an example. Btw why is clippy complaining?
Thanks!

[thomaseizinger]

ACK modulo a changelog entry.

[thomaseizinger]

with_executor is unused now I think.

[umgefahren]

so let's just delete it then

[thomaseizinger]

Before we can merge this, we need to fix the integration test here: https://github.com/libp2p/test-plans/blob/master/ping/rust/src/bin/testplan_0500.rs#L15

Would you mind sending a PR for that?

[umgefahren]

Before we can merge this, we need to fix the integration test here: https://github.com/libp2p/test-plans/blob/master/ping/rust/src/bin/testplan_0500.rs#L15

Would you mind sending a PR for that?

On it!

[mxinden]

Thanks @umgefahren for the help here!

[mxinden]

@umgefahren can you address the CI failures in libp2p and libp2p-gossipsub?

[umgefahren]

Yes will do. Although tomorrow

[umgefahren]

Yes will do. Although tomorrow

Took a little longer, my bad. Should be working now.

[mxinden]

Thanks for the follow-ups!

ACK modulo a changelog entry.

Missing changelog entry @umgefahren. Can you add one?

[mxinden]

libp2p-dcutr and libp2p-relay failures are tracked here: #2647 (comment)

[mxinden]

I forgot to bump the dependents of libp2p-swarm 🤦. I will do a follow-up pull request tomorrow.

[mxinden]

Just to make sure my mental model is correct, cargo semver check could not have detected the above, right? //CC @thomaseizinger

[thomaseizinger]

Just to make sure my mental model is correct, cargo semver check could not have detected the above, right? //CC @thomaseizinger

I think it could but it doesn't today.

cc @obi1kenobi This might be an interesting rule to add:

• crate A exports trait X
• crate B depends on crate A and publicly exports a type implementing trait X
• crate A releases a breaking change (major bump)
• updating the dependency on crate A in crate B is also a breaking change because the trait is a different one

[obi1kenobi]

Great idea, thank you! Added to obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks#5

[thomaseizinger]

Great idea, thank you! Added to obi1kenobi/cargo-semver-checks#5

Damn that is a long list! Looking forward to having all those automated some day :)

[obi1kenobi]

Damn that is a long list! Looking forward to having all those automated some day :)

It's not even a complete list, turns out there are lots of ways to break semver in Rust 😅

We just merged a big revamp of how our tests are structured, so we can start knocking out more items from the list pretty soon. Some items are blocked on needing new schema (generics, lifetimes, trait bounds, etc.) but many are not. The ones that aren't blocked are really easy to add: usually 10min or less including writing test cases. If you'd like to try your hand at writing a lint sometime (e.g. "function becomes unsafe"), I'd be happy to help.