Use Rocket v0.5 branch to fix endpoints

[BlackDex]

There now is a v0.5 branch which will be the final release version
when the time is there. Switched to this instead of the master branch
which contains other fixes and enhancements as well (for v0.6).

This should solve all the endpoint issue we were having.

Fixes #3495
Fixes #3494
Fixes #3506

[BlackDex]

Looks like this needs a bit more work, so, no merging yet.

[tessus]

Do we know, if the web-vault or the other client apps call any other endpoints (besides /plans/) with a trailing slash?

P.S.: Oh, what about the AdHoc::uri_normalizer() fairing? Didn't you want to add that as well?

[BlackDex]

Do we know, if the web-vault or the other client apps call any other endpoints (besides /plans/) with a trailing slash?

P.S.: Oh, what about the AdHoc::uri_normalizer() fairing? Didn't you want to add that as well?

I was working on that quickly today. But found a bug in that function in the latest commit. Sergio has it fixed locally if I'm correct. So, i have to wait for that. That means i will revert all the other changes already done here. Besides maybe that /plans/ function. Because that is actually called by the client like that. Didn't saw any other endpoint using that.

[BlackDex]

Switched to the v0.5 branch of Rocket, which will be the the final release version when the time comes.
This should solve the endpoint issues 😄 .

[tessus]

I am slightly puzzled by this. Rocket won't change the fact that the client is sending /plans/.

I didn't see any other changes, e.g. using a fairing to use the old behavior. So did Benito revert everything again so that a fairing is not necessary?

However, if the code always strips the last trailing slash, a ligitimate API endpoint /path/ is not possible. As I mentioned, I am a bit confused.

[BlackDex]

The v0.5 branch doesn't contain the trailing slash changes. That is something he mentioned on Matrix. And later created this branch to keep master/futurev0.6 commits and the coming final v0.5 separated.

[tessus]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't using Matrix.

But since we already know that these changes are coming in 0.6, wouldn't it make sense to already make the code ready to use 0.6-rc (or whatever the name will be of what will be released for the 0.6 branch).

Versioning in Rocket seems a bit backwards. I reckon most people use the 0.5-rcX releases in production. As soon as 0.5 is out, people will use the 0.6-rc releases... ;-)

[BlackDex]

We tend to use stable versions only. Rocket had some lifecycle challenges a while back. The next stable version is going to be v0.5 which is the version we intend to u keep using. v0.6 isn't even a think yet. Also, the trailing slash changes, according to Sergio need good testing and feedback from several users before it can be even final.

So, using the branch which is going to be the next stable is the best to do. Also, the only reason we are using commits right now instead of the rc3 is because the new changes of being able to use web-sockets via Rocket instead of using a separate port and service.