Use the IPFS core object to post block data during proposal #178
+453
−120
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ package consensus | |
|
|
||
| import ( | ||
| "bytes" | ||
| "context" | ||
| "errors" | ||
| "fmt" | ||
| "io/ioutil" | ||
|
|
@@ -11,7 +12,7 @@ import ( | |
| "time" | ||
|
|
||
| "github.com/gogo/protobuf/proto" | ||
| ipfsapi "github.com/ipfs/interface-go-ipfs-core" | ||
| cfg "github.com/lazyledger/lazyledger-core/config" | ||
| cstypes "github.com/lazyledger/lazyledger-core/consensus/types" | ||
| "github.com/lazyledger/lazyledger-core/crypto" | ||
|
|
@@ -92,6 +93,8 @@ type State struct { | |
| // store blocks and commits | ||
| blockStore sm.BlockStore | ||
|
|
||
| IpfsAPI ipfsapi.CoreAPI | ||
|
|
||
| // create and execute blocks | ||
| blockExec *sm.BlockExecutor | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -1100,6 +1103,19 @@ func (cs *State) defaultDecideProposal(height int64, round int32) { | |
| } else if !cs.replayMode { | ||
| cs.Logger.Error("enterPropose: Error signing proposal", "height", height, "round", round, "err", err) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // post data to ipfs | ||
| // TODO(evan): don't hard code context and timeout | ||
| if cs.IpfsAPI != nil { | ||
| // longer timeouts result in block proposers failing to propose blocks in time. | ||
| ctx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(context.Background(), time.Millisecond*1500) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. There is a special Also, what's the rationale behind having timeout here? There was a problem hiding this comment. Nice, I didn't know that. In this case, we need the timeout because |
||
| // TODO: post data to IPFS in a goroutine | ||
| err := block.PutBlock(ctx, cs.IpfsAPI.Dag().Pinning()) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| cs.Logger.Error(fmt.Sprintf("failure to post block data to IPFS: %s", err.Error())) | ||
| } | ||
| cancel() | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Nit: It seem more idiomatic to use There was a problem hiding this comment. resolved with a defer 52fdd1b |
||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Returns true if the proposal block is complete && | ||
|
|
||
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ func RetrieveBlockData(ctx contex.Context, dah *DataAvailabilityHeader) (types.D | |
| // the row to the Merkle Dag, in our case a Namespaced Merkle Tree. | ||
| // Note, that this method could also fill the DA header. | ||
| // The data will be pinned by default. | ||
| func (b *Block) PutBlock(ctx contex.Context, nodeAdder ipld.NodeAdder) error | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| We now describe the lower-level library that will be used by above methods. | ||
|
|
@@ -185,15 +185,6 @@ func GetLeafData( | |
| leafIndex uint32, | ||
| totalLeafs uint32, // this corresponds to the extended square width | ||
| ) ([]byte, error) | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. The idea behind this was that we have this lower level method that has ipfs, contexts etc as a dependency and PutBlock would use that. But maybe that is still not optimal as it would just be an indirection and we'd still have a dependency to networking code in There was a problem hiding this comment. Noted in #196. I think we should definitely add it back when we move |
||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| `GetLeafData` can be used by above `ValidateAvailability` and `RetrieveBlock` and | ||
|
|
||
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's track minor todos like this this in a follup issue before we merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For this case, we can pass-through context already, having an issue for that seems like an overmanagement :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not about management. But from my experience todos can be forgotten and hence it is good to capture them somewhere more visible. It does not need to be one issue per todo. We can collect all minor things like this in one issue (see for instance: #179).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've tracked these todos in #204 in order to prevent github calling me out on twitter. 😄
https://twitter.com/github/status/1367885997527171073?s=20