diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md index 6d4f905b0..7ff15100d 100644 --- a/CHANGELOG.md +++ b/CHANGELOG.md @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ This is the resolution of #548, which reported `TransType.L2TP` (115) as registe - **Added** -- `examples/generators/endian.py`, and the byte-order tests that read what it writes. There was no big-endian `.pcap` in the repository at all, which is why #605 survived its own code review: the one-character fix leaves the corrected path exactly as untested as the broken one. The generator writes three captures -- `big_endian.pcap` (magic `a1 b2 c3 d4`), `big_endian_nanosecond.pcap` (`a1 b2 3c 4d`, the first fixture to take that branch of the magic-number table) and `little_endian.pcap` (`d4 c3 b2 a1`) -- carrying the *same three records* in each container, so the tests can assert that the byte order makes no difference to what is read out rather than only that the big-endian file matches numbers written down in a test. Frame 3 is captured short, 1200 octets on the wire cut to a 96-octet `snaplen`, so `incl_len` and `orig_len` differ and cannot both be satisfied by one byte-swapped value. `test_frame_endian_runtime.py` drives all three through `extract()` and walks each file's record chain with `struct` to derive its own expectations; a unit-tier case in `test_header_frame_unit.py` builds a two-record big-endian capture in memory instead, so the regression is also caught by the fixture-free selection CI runs on every push. All four fail on the unfixed tree -- the three fixture-backed ones by that `ValueError`, the in-memory one by `AssertionError: 3106905 != 1500000000` -- while the little-endian twin passes on both trees, which is what shows the records themselves are not the variable (#605). - **Changed** -- `tests/protocols/transport/test_tcp_udp_unit.py` now reaches the MP_JOIN dispatchers through `TCP()` itself, instead of assigning a Python `set` to `_flags` on a bare `TCP.__new__(TCP)`. A `set` answers the membership tests `_make_mptcp_join` and `_read_mptcp_join` use, so every flag branch ran and both TCP modules read 100% statement and branch coverage -- while the attribute had neither the `aenum.IntFlag` type production assigns nor the ordering that governs when it exists at all, which is how #587 stayed invisible behind that number and how the `cast('Enum_Flags', 0)` no-op behind it went unnoticed too. Measured on the rewrite, against the 17 tests of that file: revert #587's hoist and two of them fail with `AttributeError: 'TCP' object has no attribute '_flags'` where all 17 passed before; restore the `cast` and two fail with `TypeError: argument of type 'int' is not a container or iterable`, again where all 17 passed. The library is unchanged and the file's tests still pass, so the coverage numbers do not move -- the point is what the same numbers are now worth (#603). - **Fixed** -- documentation. `mptcp_dss_ack_selector`'s note said a corrected field-width lambda "would not have worked" and that fixing it belonged to `pcapkit.corekit.fields.numbers`, which is exactly where #598 then fixed it; the same paragraph sat in `test_tcp_mptcp_length_arithmetic_unit.py`'s module docstring, whose other stale claim was that MP_JOIN "cannot be built through the public `TCP()` constructor at all", true only until #587. A callable-length `NumberField` packs and unpacks both DSS widths now, and wire *absence* was never the obstacle either: `MPTCPDSS.ssn`, `dl_len` and `checksum` have always been `ConditionalField` on the sibling `M` flag, so the class already relied on that wrapper to keep a field off the wire. The `SwitchField` form is kept for the narrower reason the note now gives -- `ConditionalField`'s `length` forwards to the wrapped field without consulting the condition, so it is safe here only because `Schema.pack` and `Schema.unpack` special-case that wrapper by name, whereas a `SwitchField` always resolves to a concrete field. Replacing it would be a behaviour change and is not made (#603). +- **Changed** -- `CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md` moves from Contributor Covenant 1.4 to Contributor Covenant 3.0, at the maintainer's request. The text is the canonical 3.0 Markdown fetched from https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/code_of_conduct/code_of_conduct.md rather than a transcription, so the pledge, the encouraged and restricted behaviours and the scope are unaltered. Three things needed deciding rather than copying. 3.0 ships two `[NOTE` placeholders an adopter must fill: the reporting channel, which now names `jarryshaw@icloud.com` -- the same contact 1.4 carried and the one `SECURITY.md` already points at as its email fallback -- plus GitHub's report-abuse form for the case a single-maintainer project cannot otherwise cover, a report about the maintainer; and the enforcement section, whose placeholder is an instruction to the adopter and is removed. 3.0 then assigns enforcement throughout to plural "Community Moderators" (and once, inconsistently, to "Community Managers"), which this repository does not have, so all eight occurrences become the singular maintainer. The four-rung ladder -- Warning, Temporarily Limited Activities, Temporary Suspension, Permanent Ban -- is offered as a suggestion and is **kept**, because each rung maps onto a lever one person actually holds on GitHub: a private message, a locked thread, an interaction limit or block, a permanent block. Finally, 3.0 is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 where 1.4's attribution paragraph carried no licence notice at all, so the attribution now names version 3.0, links the permanent `version/3/0/` URL, carries the CC BY-SA 4.0 notice and link, indicates that changes were made as BY requires, and says explicitly that the share-alike term covers this document only -- the code remains BSD-3-Clause and `LICENSE` is untouched. Rendering was checked against GitHub's own Markdown API rather than assumed: the ladder comes back as four list items each nesting three, which is what #613 had to repair in the 1.4 file when a stray list marker collapsed the whole document into one nested item (#624). Preceded by `1.5.0a1` (2026-09-15), `1.5.0b1` and `1.5.0b2` (both 2026-09-18) and `1.5.0b3` (2026-09-19), all published as prereleases and so resolved only by `pip install --pre`. `1.5.0b1` half-shipped: the tag, the GitHub release and the Conda deployments landed, but PyPI rejected the wheel because `twine check` found a Sphinx-only `:mod:` role in `README.rst`, which `pyproject.toml` declares as the dynamic long description. `1.5.0b2` is what reshipped it -- the release workflow is version-driven, so an existing version cannot republish -- and `1.5.0b3` followed the CI change that stops a TestPyPI outage from costing a release its wheels (#497, #498). diff --git a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md index 5ec1c28cf..0fb630cc4 100755 --- a/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md +++ b/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md @@ -1,46 +1,97 @@ -# Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct +# Contributor Covenant 3.0 Code of Conduct ## Our Pledge -In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as contributors and maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, level of experience, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. +We pledge to make our community welcoming, safe, and equitable for all. -## Our Standards +We are committed to fostering an environment that respects and promotes the dignity, rights, and contributions of all individuals, regardless of characteristics including race, ethnicity, caste, color, age, physical characteristics, neurodiversity, disability, sex or gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, language, philosophy or religion, national or social origin, socio-economic position, level of education, or other status. The same privileges of participation are extended to everyone who participates in good faith and in accordance with this Covenant. -Examples of behavior that contributes to creating a positive environment include: -* Using welcoming and inclusive language -* Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences -* Gracefully accepting constructive criticism -* Focusing on what is best for the community -* Showing empathy towards other community members +## Encouraged Behaviors -Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: +While acknowledging differences in social norms, we all strive to meet our community's expectations for positive behavior. We also understand that our words and actions may be interpreted differently than we intend based on culture, background, or native language. -* The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances -* Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks -* Public or private harassment -* Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission -* Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting +With these considerations in mind, we agree to behave mindfully toward each other and act in ways that center our shared values, including: -## Our Responsibilities +1. Respecting the **purpose of our community**, our activities, and our ways of gathering. +2. Engaging **kindly and honestly** with others. +3. Respecting **different viewpoints** and experiences. +4. **Taking responsibility** for our actions and contributions. +5. Gracefully giving and accepting **constructive feedback**. +6. Committing to **repairing harm** when it occurs. +7. Behaving in other ways that promote and sustain the **well-being of our community**. -Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior. -Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. +## Restricted Behaviors -## Scope +We agree to restrict the following behaviors in our community. Instances, threats, and promotion of these behaviors are violations of this Code of Conduct. + +1. **Harassment.** Violating explicitly expressed boundaries or engaging in unnecessary personal attention after any clear request to stop. +2. **Character attacks.** Making insulting, demeaning, or pejorative comments directed at a community member or group of people. +3. **Stereotyping or discrimination.** Characterizing anyone’s personality or behavior on the basis of immutable identities or traits. +4. **Sexualization.** Behaving in a way that would generally be considered inappropriately intimate in the context or purpose of the community. +5. **Violating confidentiality**. Sharing or acting on someone's personal or private information without their permission. +6. **Endangerment.** Causing, encouraging, or threatening violence or other harm toward any person or group. +7. Behaving in other ways that **threaten the well-being** of our community. + +### Other Restrictions + +1. **Misleading identity.** Impersonating someone else for any reason, or pretending to be someone else to evade enforcement actions. +2. **Failing to credit sources.** Not properly crediting the sources of content you contribute. +3. **Promotional materials**. Sharing marketing or other commercial content in a way that is outside the norms of the community. +4. **Irresponsible communication.** Failing to responsibly present content which includes, links or describes any other restricted behaviors. + + +## Reporting an Issue + +Tensions can occur between community members even when they are trying their best to collaborate. Not every conflict represents a code of conduct violation, and this Code of Conduct reinforces encouraged behaviors and norms that can help avoid conflicts and minimize harm. + +When an incident does occur, it is important to report it promptly. To report a possible violation, email the maintainer at with `Code of Conduct` in the subject line, and include links to the issues, pull requests, commits, or messages involved. Where contacting the maintainer directly is not appropriate — most obviously when the report concerns the maintainer — use GitHub's own [report abuse](https://github.com/contact/report-abuse) form instead, which reaches GitHub rather than this project. + +A security vulnerability is not a conduct report and has a separate channel: see [`SECURITY.md`](SECURITY.md), which asks for a private advisory rather than an email. + +`pcapkit` is maintained by one person, so there is no moderation team and no rota. Reports go to the maintainer, who will make every effort to respond in a timely manner — normally an acknowledgement within a week — though response is best-effort rather than contractual. Every report is investigated: reading the issue, pull request, commit, and message history involved, and asking those involved for their own account of it. Investigation and enforcement actions are kept as transparent as possible while prioritizing safety and confidentiality. In order to honor these values, enforcement actions are carried out in private with the involved parties, but communicating to the whole community may be part of a mutually agreed upon resolution. -This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. -## Enforcement +## Addressing and Repairing Harm -Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by contacting the project team at jarryshaw@icloud.com. The project team will review and investigate all complaints, and will respond in a way that it deems appropriate to the circumstances. The project team is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately. +If an investigation finds that this Code of Conduct has been violated, the following enforcement ladder may be used to determine how best to repair harm, based on the incident's impact on the individuals involved and the community as a whole. Depending on the severity of a violation, lower rungs on the ladder may be skipped. + +The ladder is the one Contributor Covenant suggests, kept rather than rewritten, because each of its four rungs maps onto something a single maintainer can genuinely carry out on GitHub: a private message; a locked or limited thread; a temporary interaction limit or block; and a permanent block, reported to GitHub. + +1) Warning + 1) Event: A violation involving a single incident or series of incidents. + 2) Consequence: A private, written warning from the maintainer. + 3) Repair: Examples of repair include a private written apology, acknowledgement of responsibility, and seeking clarification on expectations. +2) Temporarily Limited Activities + 1) Event: A repeated incidence of a violation that previously resulted in a warning, or the first incidence of a more serious violation. + 2) Consequence: A private, written warning with a time-limited cooldown period designed to underscore the seriousness of the situation and give the community members involved time to process the incident. The cooldown period may be limited to particular communication channels or interactions with particular community members. + 3) Repair: Examples of repair may include making an apology, using the cooldown period to reflect on actions and impact, and being thoughtful about re-entering community spaces after the period is over. +3) Temporary Suspension + 1) Event: A pattern of repeated violation which the maintainer has tried to address with warnings, or a single serious violation. + 2) Consequence: A private written warning with conditions for return from suspension. In general, temporary suspensions give the person being suspended time to reflect upon their behavior and possible corrective actions. + 3) Repair: Examples of repair include respecting the spirit of the suspension, meeting the specified conditions for return, and being thoughtful about how to reintegrate with the community when the suspension is lifted. +4) Permanent Ban + 1) Event: A pattern of repeated code of conduct violations that other steps on the ladder have failed to resolve, or a violation so serious that the maintainer determines there is no way to keep the community safe with this person as a member. + 2) Consequence: Access to all community spaces, tools, and communication channels is removed. In general, permanent bans should be rarely used, should have strong reasoning behind them, and should only be resorted to if working through other remedies has failed to change the behavior. + 3) Repair: There is no possible repair in cases of this severity. + +This enforcement ladder is intended as a guideline. It does not limit the maintainer's ability to use discretion and judgment, in keeping with the best interests of our community. + + +## Scope + +This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public or other spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official email address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. -Project maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project's leadership. ## Attribution -This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage], version 1.4, available at [https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct/][version] +This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 3.0, permanently available at [https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/). + +Changes were made. The "Reporting an Issue" and "Addressing and Repairing Harm" sections name this project's reporting channels and attribute enforcement to its single maintainer, in place of the plural "Community Moderators" the upstream text assumes; the rest is unmodified. + +Contributor Covenant is stewarded by the Organization for Ethical Source and licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) + +That license covers this document only. The `pcapkit` source code is separately licensed under BSD-3-Clause; see [`LICENSE`](LICENSE). -[homepage]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org -[version]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct/ +For answers to common questions about Contributor Covenant, see the FAQ at [https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq). Translations are provided at [https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations). Additional enforcement and community guideline resources can be found at [https://www.contributor-covenant.org/resources](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/resources). The enforcement ladder was inspired by the work of [Mozilla’s code of conduct team](https://github.com/mozilla/inclusion). diff --git a/docs/source/changelog/1.5.0.rst b/docs/source/changelog/1.5.0.rst index a89c5852e..aac296e78 100644 --- a/docs/source/changelog/1.5.0.rst +++ b/docs/source/changelog/1.5.0.rst @@ -941,6 +941,33 @@ pull requests between #326 and #509. is safe here only because ``Schema.pack`` and ``Schema.unpack`` special-case that wrapper by name, whereas a ``SwitchField`` always resolves to a concrete field. Replacing it would be a behaviour change and is not made (#603). +* **Changed** -- ``CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md`` moves from Contributor Covenant 1.4 to + Contributor Covenant 3.0, at the maintainer's request. The text is the canonical + 3.0 Markdown fetched from + https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/3/0/code_of_conduct/code_of_conduct.md + rather than a transcription, so the pledge, the encouraged and restricted + behaviours and the scope are unaltered. Three things needed deciding rather than + copying. 3.0 ships two ``[NOTE`` placeholders an adopter must fill: the reporting + channel, which now names ``jarryshaw@icloud.com`` -- the same contact 1.4 carried + and the one ``SECURITY.md`` already points at as its email fallback -- plus + GitHub's report-abuse form for the case a single-maintainer project cannot + otherwise cover, a report about the maintainer; and the enforcement section, whose + placeholder is an instruction to the adopter and is removed. 3.0 then assigns + enforcement throughout to plural "Community Moderators" (and once, inconsistently, + to "Community Managers"), which this repository does not have, so all eight + occurrences become the singular maintainer. The four-rung ladder -- Warning, + Temporarily Limited Activities, Temporary Suspension, Permanent Ban -- is offered + as a suggestion and is **kept**, because each rung maps onto a lever one person + actually holds on GitHub: a private message, a locked thread, an interaction limit + or block, a permanent block. Finally, 3.0 is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 where 1.4's + attribution paragraph carried no licence notice at all, so the attribution now + names version 3.0, links the permanent ``version/3/0/`` URL, carries the CC BY-SA + 4.0 notice and link, indicates that changes were made as BY requires, and says + explicitly that the share-alike term covers this document only -- the code remains + BSD-3-Clause and ``LICENSE`` is untouched. Rendering was checked against GitHub's + own Markdown API rather than assumed: the ladder comes back as four list items each + nesting three, which is what #613 had to repair in the 1.4 file when a stray list + marker collapsed the whole document into one nested item (#624). Preceded by ``1.5.0a1`` (2026-09-15), ``1.5.0b1`` and ``1.5.0b2`` (both 2026-09-18) and ``1.5.0b3`` (2026-09-19), all published as prereleases and so