-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
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
feat(op-node): Peer Score Hardening #4743
Conversation
|
Not opposed to the comments being broken out into their own PR |
Will do going forward - keeping for now as i'm still learning. |
b333e23
to
4e19f01
Compare
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.
Really nice doc additions in the heartbeat & sources packages, but could you pull them out of this PR into a separate PR. We try to keep PRs as a single unit rather than pulling in a bunch of disparate changes.
Co-authored-by: protolambda <proto@protolambda.com>
Going to defer most review here to @protolambda and @trianglesphere as I'm not super familiar with the internals of libp2p and have other things that I need to prioritize Good job with the documented code @refcell |
Hey @refcell! This PR has merge conflicts. Please fix them before continuing review. |
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #4743 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 40.51% 36.22% -4.30%
===========================================
Files 288 207 -81
Lines 20119 17224 -2895
Branches 602 0 -602
===========================================
- Hits 8152 6240 -1912
+ Misses 11346 10355 -991
- Partials 621 629 +8
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
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.
I don't know the implementation details of go libp2p enough to review a lot of this, but left a few comments for the parts I do understand. :)
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.
+1 on the invalid-messages testing note by Adrian. We can do so in a separate follow-up PR though. This one is consistent and complete to merge, and already quite large. If you do mark as resolved, do open an issue for the ban testing so we can track it
This PR has been added to the merge queue, and will be merged soon. |
This PR is next in line to be merged, and will be merged as soon as checks pass. |
@@ -115,7 +115,6 @@ func (ibc *IterativeBatchCall[K, V]) Fetch(ctx context.Context) error { | |||
} | |||
return ctx.Err() | |||
default: | |||
break |
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.
why was this removed? I think it's a no-op, but it seems really unrelated
Description
Closes CLI-3524
Closes CLI-3245
Closes CLI-3249
Closes CLI-3247
Changelog
op-node
.