Road to safe wrappers
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 359
- Forks
- 153
- Avg merge
- 2d 10h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Description
As part of #638 I am investigating what do we need to safe wrappers.
Ex: JS_StringEqualsAscii(cx: *mut JSContext, str_: *mut JSString, asciiBytes: *const ::std::os::raw::c_char, match_: *mut bool) -> bool
and safe and rusty version would be JS_StringEqualsAscii(cx: &JSContext, str_: JSStringWrapper, asciiBytes: &'static CStr, match_: &mut bool) -> Result<(), ()>.
While doing this could be somehow automated, we should still manually check if all assumptions are upheld in SM, so maybe it make sense to make this fully manual rather than trying to automate this.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with issue #638 and compare the raw JS_StringEqualsAscii signature with the proposed safe Rust version. Identify the SpiderMonkey assumptions that must be checked manually, and consider the work complete when the required wrapper scope and safety checks are explicitly defined.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100