Skip to content
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

Sdk 142 - Dns client #1

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Sdk 142 - Dns client #1

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

paologalligit
Copy link

Create a new actor responsible for DNS seeder lookups (DnsClient) and the strategies it will be collecting IP addresses with:

  • it will receive a GetDnsSeeds message with a strategy and return to the sender the IP addresses based on that strategy;
  • the strategies can be
    • get as many IP addresses as possible;
    • get the minimum number of IP addresses (just return the collection of IPs returned by the first DNS seeder);
    • get at least X number of IP addresses;
  • add a new network configuration called knownSeeders;
  • unit tests-

Paolo Galli added 4 commits June 30, 2022 14:48
Sdk 143 - DnsClient lookup flow implementation

val (ipv4Addresses, ipv6Addresses) = seeders.foldLeft(Seq[InetAddress]()) { (acc, curr) =>
val newElements = if (acc.size < nodesThreshold) {
lookupFunction(curr)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think should be better to handle excpetion during lookup (to proceed with the next seeder)

case class DnsClientInput(dnsSeeders: Seq[DnsSeederDomain], lookupFunction: DnsSeederDomain => Seq[InetAddress] = defaultLookupFunction)

object DnsClientInput {
def defaultLookupFunction(url: DnsSeederDomain): Seq[InetAddress] = {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

change return type to Try[Seq[InetAddress]], to allow exception handling in the caller

@@ -91,6 +98,8 @@ class PeerManager(settings: ScorexSettings, scorexContext: ScorexContext) extend
peerSpec.declaredAddress.exists(isSelf) || peerSpec.localAddressOpt.exists(isSelf)
}

private def peerDatabaseHasOnlyKnownPeersFromConfig(): Boolean = peerDatabase.knownPeers.size <= settings.network.knownPeers.size

Copy link
Collaborator

@paolocappelletti paolocappelletti Jun 30, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we should compare also the single element's value, not only the size

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We're comparing the size because it's considering a new feature we'll add. We're going to keep in the peer database all the addresses of the knownPeers, instead of deleting them after the first time we cannot connect. So, it's implicit that, at most, the internal peer database will contain a number of peers equal to the number of known peers

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok got it, but let's add a comment

@@ -23,7 +23,11 @@ class PeerManager(settings: ScorexSettings, scorexContext: ScorexContext) extend

if (peerDatabase.isEmpty) {
// fill database with peers from config file if empty
settings.network.knownPeers.foreach { address =>
fillPeerDatabase(settings.network.knownPeers)
}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we should also fire a GetNewPeers here , to first start the process at bootstrap

@@ -65,6 +69,9 @@ class PeerManager(settings: ScorexSettings, scorexContext: ScorexContext) extend
case RemovePeer(address) =>
log.info(s"$address removed from peers database")
peerDatabase.remove(address)
if (peerDatabaseHasOnlyKnownPeersFromConfig()) {
sender() ! EmptyPeerDatabase
Copy link
Collaborator

@paolocappelletti paolocappelletti Jul 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is really needed to fire this EmptyPeerDatabase message?
Maybe is enough to fire direclty GetNewPeers, unless there is a reason to go always through the NetworkController
also: instead of firing the update when the new peers is empty maybe is worth to "ping" the seeders every a reasonable amount of time (like 30 minutes?). in this way we don't have to restart a node if the list returned by any of the seeds is changed. Is it possible to set Akka to fire a message every x minutes?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This sounds like one of the options that we took into consideration: if we don't receive a new block in 15 minutes, then we need new peers because we're not connected to any forger node. The solution to check the internal database is simpler and we don't have to schedule any jobs.
Regarding passing through the NetworkController, it's more a pattern that is implementing scorex. So the peer manager, which is just a storage, detects that we don't have any more peer and tells it to the network controller, who's responsible to coordinate the different actors.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

after today discussion let'ls discard my comment (in reality the new peer will be broadcasted to the others anyway when it first tries to connect to another one).
Just one final note: I would change the message name from EmptyPeerDatabase to PeerDatabaseIsEmpty (more clear it notifies a state)

Paolo Galli added 2 commits July 1, 2022 17:58
lookupFunction(curr) match {
case Success(value) => value
case Failure(exception) =>
exceptionMessages ++ exception.getMessage
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

log the exception also please

@i-Alex i-Alex changed the base branch from main to dev July 6, 2022 10:27
@i-Alex i-Alex marked this pull request as ready for review July 7, 2022 07:39
@i-Alex i-Alex requested a review from i-skrypnyk July 7, 2022 08:56
@i-Alex
Copy link

i-Alex commented Jul 7, 2022

@i-skrypnyk take a look to the PR later. Seems it touches the files/methods that are going to be changed by you in the other task.

@i-skrypnyk
Copy link
Collaborator

@paologalligit @i-Alex are we still going to include this one, or it can be closed?

@paologalligit
Copy link
Author

@paologalligit @i-Alex are we still going to include this one, or it can be closed?

This won't be included in RC-10 release

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants