-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
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
Fix various IPNS issues #4440
Fix various IPNS issues #4440
Conversation
We republish every 4 hours, not 12. License: MIT Signed-off-by: Steven Allen <steven@stebalien.com>
(after a delay of 1 minute) License: MIT Signed-off-by: Steven Allen <steven@stebalien.com>
This way, if we *happen* to be offline while attempting a publish, we don't wait the full interval. License: MIT Signed-off-by: Steven Allen <steven@stebalien.com>
(makes code climate happy) License: MIT Signed-off-by: Steven Allen <steven@stebalien.com>
License: MIT Signed-off-by: Steven Allen <steven@stebalien.com>
defer tick.Stop() | ||
timer := time.NewTimer(InitialRebroadcastDelay) | ||
defer timer.Stop() | ||
if rp.Interval < InitialRebroadcastDelay { |
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.
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of the initial delay?
I think we should simply tick with the InitialRebroadcastDelay unconditionally here.
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.
The initial delay is usually much shorter than the interval. If the user asks us to, e.g., publish every 10s, IMO, we should do that regardless of the initial delay (at the moment, not doing that would break the tests).
Alternatively, we could make the initial delay configurable (but that's one more knob).
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.
Yeah that's reasonable -- no need to have another knob for this.
Found while looking into: https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/ipfs-name-failing-to-resolve/1524