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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Add automatic sharding/unsharding tests #8547
Add automatic sharding/unsharding tests #8547
Changes from 1 commit
aab5493
927fad8
16622c8
c393aec
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.
The 0 value disables the options.
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.
ya that's fair although, I'm not sure how I feel about
0
here. I'm not even sure if when go-ipfs processes the config file it should accept 0 as a value. It restores behavior to the go-ipfs <v0.10.0 defaults, but I'm not sure it's obvious to reason about (i.e. the feature is turned off which means data is add as a basic directory and no automatic sharding or unsharding of existing MFS directories).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.
no problem, just flagging that theoretically at least we expose a "disabled" option in UnixFS, but 1G is more than enough to consider it disabled for all intended purposes
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.
As discussed informally in chat (but can elaborate more here if needed) any kind of directory manipulation goes through the same "automatic" sharding mechanism, whether it is adding/removing one entry at a time from an MFS tree with
ipfs files add/rm
, or consuming an entire directory at once withipfs add -r <big-dir>
.So above and below this line we are testing the same UnixFS code. This doesn't mean that the current division is superfluous as we're accessing that mechanism through different
go-ipfs
paths but I'm mentioning this to (a) check if this was indeed the intention here and (b) think if we could re-label this boundary.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.
True, but in the event the code paths were different we'd be testing different things. i.e. here we are testing that when we remove data from a sharded directory we get an unsharded one and when we add the data back we end up with a sharded one again.
Does that make sense?
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.
Yes, it does. I think my main issue here is with the "automatic" boundary, which might imply the previous commands were not, that they didn't use the new UnixFS mechanism and instead were forced or explicitly stated to shard (where in fact we calculated the exact entries number that would go over the threshold and trigger the mechanism). I think your previous explanation is more clear (but still we're in the nit realm so we can ignore this):