Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 15, 2024. It is now read-only.

feat: support passing bootstrappers to DHT #142

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 20, 2023

Conversation

rach-id
Copy link
Member

@rach-id rach-id commented Feb 15, 2023

Overview

Contributes to #138

Checklist

  • New and updated code has appropriate documentation
  • New and updated code has new and/or updated testing
  • Required CI checks are passing
  • Visual proof for any user facing features like CLI or documentation updates
  • Linked issues closed with keywords

@rach-id rach-id added the p2p p2p network related label Feb 15, 2023
@rach-id rach-id requested a review from rahulghangas February 15, 2023 14:54
@rach-id rach-id requested a review from evan-forbes as a code owner February 15, 2023 14:54
@rach-id rach-id self-assigned this Feb 15, 2023
@rach-id
Copy link
Member Author

rach-id commented Feb 17, 2023

This one is next to be reviewed to unblock the other ones

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #142 (1afb09c) into main (8d8204e) will decrease coverage by 2.93%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #142      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   51.66%   48.74%   -2.93%     
==========================================
  Files          16       17       +1     
  Lines         991     1155     +164     
==========================================
+ Hits          512      563      +51     
- Misses        423      528     +105     
- Partials       56       64       +8     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
p2p/dht.go 68.67% <100.00%> (+0.38%) ⬆️
relayer/relayer.go 30.67% <0.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

)

// give some time for the routing table to be updated
time.Sleep(time.Second)
Copy link
Contributor

@rahulghangas rahulghangas Feb 20, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we should add a timeout with busy polling or checks at intervals rather than just wait for a period of time. If this time duration is changed in the future, the test could easily become flaky on CI

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We have the wait for peers that does exactly that and its used in other tests.
However, i wanted this test to be as simple as possible and not use any such function.
What do you think? Should i open a follow up PR using that?

@rach-id rach-id merged commit dc40f9b into celestiaorg:main Feb 20, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
p2p p2p network related
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants