feature: support dfget params for each proxy

[yeya24]

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did

Add support for each proxy to use different dfget params.

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

NONE

Ⅲ. Why don't you add test cases (unit test/integration test)? (你真的觉得不需要加测试吗？)

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #826 into master will increase coverage by 0.27%.
The diff coverage is 41.66%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #826      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   39.67%   39.95%   +0.27%     
==========================================
  Files         109      109              
  Lines        6432     6367      -65     
==========================================
- Hits         2552     2544       -8     
+ Misses       3672     3615      -57     
  Partials      208      208

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
dfdaemon/config/config.go	88.09% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
dfdaemon/proxy/downloader.go	0% <0%> (ø)
dfdaemon/proxy/proxy.go	8.08% <76.92%> (-0.47%)	⬇️
supernode/util/locker.go	0% <0%> (-10%)	⬇️
supernode/daemon/util/store.go	91.3% <0%> (-8.7%)	⬇️
hack/boilerplate/check-boilerplate.go	33.33% <0%> (-3.26%)	⬇️
supernode/config/config.go	63.41% <0%> (-3.26%)	⬇️
supernode/daemon/mgr/progress/state_sync_map.go	4.16% <0%> (-1.39%)	⬇️
supernode/daemon/mgr/progress/progress_manager.go	23.84% <0%> (-1.16%)	⬇️
supernode/daemon/mgr/scheduler/manager.go	24.06% <0%> (-0.76%)	⬇️
... and 19 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 219498a...e7c0128. Read the comment docs.

[inoc603]

The idea is good and the code looks fine.

But I'm a little concerned about the overriding dfget params part. Before we actually use a struct for dfget config as proposed in #824 , appending custom parameters to global parameters does not feel very robust. I'm sure it will work, but I think we should write tests to verify the override behavior. Also we should check if we print the final args which might have duplicated parameters in them.

[yeya24]

The idea is good and the code looks fine.

But I'm a little concerned about the overriding dfget params part. Before we actually use a struct for dfget config as proposed in #824 , appending custom parameters to global parameters does not feel very robust. I'm sure it will work, but I think we should write tests to verify the override behavior. Also we should check if we print the final args which might have duplicated parameters in them.

Totally agree with you.
I think your question about this dfget params behavior is from the slice struct of params. I think finally we will use a struct to represent params, instead of just slices.
Let @starnop give his idea.

[starnop]

Yeah, I agree with you. @yeya24 @inoc603

And I think we can do as @inoc603 said here firstly.

[yeya24]

So what's the plan of this pr? Do I need to work on this again? Do we plan to rework the dfget configuration as my previous pr did?

[yeya24]

@starnop Hello, do you think this feature still needed? If yes, I can do a rebase.

[pouchrobot]

ping @yeya24
Conflict happens after merging a previous commit.
Please rebase the branch against master and push it back again. Thanks a lot.

[yeya24]

Close this pr since it seems not needed anymore.