Implementation of Fluffy state network gossip. #2210
Conversation
| ContractTrieNodeOffer.init(parentProof, offer.accountProof, offer.blockHash) | ||
|
|
||
| (parentKey, parentOffer) | ||
|
|
||
| proc gossipOffer*( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kdeme By the way I opted to leave the name as gossipOffer because in the case of bytecode there is no recursive gossip. The more generic name makes sense to me for this reason.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's fine. The call is practically also doing more than just the recursive gossip as it also does the regular gossip.
| ) {.async.} = | ||
| asyncSpawn p.neighborhoodGossipDiscardPeers( | ||
| srcNodeId, ContentKeysList.init(@[keyBytes]), @[offerBytes] | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@kdeme In this code I'm gossiping out the offer without await and then gossiping the parent offer below. Is there reason that you can think of to try and enforce the order of gossip by using an await here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure. They will both end up in the offerQueue, so that's fine.
But eventually we might have to think about the effects when the offerQueue is full.
E.g. In case of a lot of gossip started from a bridge, there can come a build-up futures that are being awaited to add to the queue. And there wouldn't be a "feedback" of this possible due to the asyncSpawn afaik.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I'll leave it for now and review later if and when needed once we have the state network up and running.
| let (parentKey, parentOffer) = getParent(key, offer) | ||
| asyncSpawn p.neighborhoodGossipDiscardPeers( | ||
| srcNodeId, | ||
| ContentKeysList.init(@[parentKey.toContentKey().encode()]), | ||
| @[parentOffer.encode()], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps a little comment in front here that indicates that this is the recursive gossip part.
Summary of changes:
getParenthelper functions to calculate the parent path and proof for recursive gossip.getAccountTrieNode,getContractTrieNodeandgetContractCodeTests still in progress.