You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After upgrading to 0.42.0 (gossipsub 0.35.0) I started to see this message when rejecting a message (reporting an Ignore or Reject as message validation):
Unexpected delivery trace: Message from 12D3KooWSsDZA2nT4WGsZ5Sd1qsrVjMt5pY8p7urwGQPLdHtoKia was first seen 0s ago and has a delivery status Ignored
This also using content base addressing (using the hash of the message as MessageId).
After digging a little more, the change that is making the message to appear comes from this change where specifically here the code is now calling reject_message for different peers.
But when it goes inside the function the deliveriesTimeCache is addressed by MessageId (which in my case is the hash of the message) and thus when called for the second time, the record hash returns the record as already validated and then the message is printed and no further code is executed in this function.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The original scoring was not designed for the optimization that I added, and I missed this warning. It is harmless though.
We have been looking more deeply into gossipsub. If you are using it there are some other more significant issues we are dealing with which should be patched in the next version.
After upgrading to 0.42.0 (gossipsub 0.35.0) I started to see this message when rejecting a message (reporting an
Ignore
orReject
as message validation):This also using content base addressing (using the hash of the message as
MessageId
).After digging a little more, the change that is making the message to appear comes from this change where specifically here the code is now calling
reject_message
for different peers.But when it goes inside the function the
deliveries
TimeCache
is addressed byMessageId
(which in my case is the hash of the message) and thus when called for the second time, the record hash returns the record as already validated and then the message is printed and no further code is executed in this function.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: