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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: use IPNI advertisements from the miner only #55
feat: use IPNI advertisements from the miner only #55
Changes from 3 commits
2d6b8fc
a4a26fc
58145d9
274909e
0498482
7378e8d
0a48986
db3b2ae
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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 don't understand the need for this custom property
.reported
here.If we remove the
console.error(err)
above, then we can let the outer catch handler log it. Also, the outer catch handler can call#activity.onError()
itself.I think the only custom error handling we need here is when
err.name === 'FilecoinRpcError'
, and in that case we can simply add a new log event. I'm proposing to refactor this catch handler like this: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 discuss.
In my proposed implementation:
this.#activity.onError()
, therefore Spark stays in "online" modeIn your proposal:
this.#activity.onError()
and puts Spark to offline mode.Here is the important question we need to answer: How should we handle the case when we cannot get a miner's Peer ID because Filecoin RPC returns an error?
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.
Ah understood! I thought the purpose of
err.reported
was to prevent double log lines, now I see it's also to prevent reporting it to the activity state handler.Could we be more explicit about this?
error.setActivityToOffline = false
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.
See db3b2ae
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.
wouldn't it be safer to push the function calls into an array, and then assert this function was called at all? This is the advice you give me with all these mocks I believe
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.
In this particular test, if my stubbed function isn't called, the retrieval check fails because Filecoin's RPC API call will reject the fake miner id.
The purpose of this test is not to verify how Spark works under the hood (and whether it calls all other functions we think it should call) but whether it can find the provider and retrieve the data for the CID served by our Frisbii instance.
However, if you think it's worth asserting that both functions were called, then I am fine with adding that. Let me know!
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.
This was also my understanding when I wrote tests like this, but through your reviews I understood that it's clearer and safer to assert the function calls. If in the future a condition is introduced which skips
lookupMinerPeerId()
, then this test will still pass.However,iIn my previous review I missed that this was an integration test and not a unit test. Please choose the testing method that you see fits best.
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.
added in 0a48986