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

Archival node #3778

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 28, 2024
Merged

Archival node #3778

merged 4 commits into from
Dec 28, 2024

Conversation

roman-khimov
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

That's the way it's defined and used in C#, see neo-project/neo#3639 also.

Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 27, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.16%. Comparing base (64c4de4) to head (82b4007).
Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3778      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.13%   83.16%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         335      335              
  Lines       46855    46873      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        38954    38984      +30     
+ Misses       6311     6299      -12     
  Partials     1590     1590              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Linter is failing. Otherwise LGTM, but need to check one thing.

It's more symmetric than the C# counterpart, but the essence is the same: we
can accept capabilities we can't interpret. Refs. neo-project/neo#3639

Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
This will be used to differentiate full history nodes from state only. Currently
it's just a definition, we can not use it safely on current networks because
nodes will refuse this Version, so actual code using the attribute will be
added in newer versions.

Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <[email protected]>
AnnaShaleva added a commit to neo-project/neo that referenced this pull request Dec 28, 2024
Otherwise it can't be properly passed through the P2P network which makes
it impossible to use UnknownCapabilities as an extensions in the existing
networks.

Follow nspcc-dev/neo-go#3778.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
AnnaShaleva added a commit to neo-project/neo that referenced this pull request Dec 28, 2024
Without this commit every `Addr` message containing UnknownCapability
will be considered as invalid. The desired behaviour is to include node
with UnknownCapability into the list of peers.

Follow the nspcc-dev/neo-go#3778, should be a
part of #3639.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
AnnaShaleva added a commit to neo-project/neo that referenced this pull request Dec 28, 2024
Make the behaviour compatible with
nspcc-dev/neo-go#3778.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
@AnnaShaleva
Copy link
Member

Please, check neo-project/neo#3647, from the current implementation it seems to me that UnknownCapability can be passed through the network without any restrictions, which is correct, but prohibited in C# node.

@roman-khimov
Copy link
Member Author

It's mentioned in commits and Unknown is not a real capability, so there is no incompatibility here.

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva merged commit 4d2b88d into master Dec 28, 2024
34 checks passed
@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva deleted the archival-node branch December 28, 2024 09:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants