discovery/sync_manager: restart historical sync on first connected peer - #3103
Conversation
halseth
added
discovery
wpaulino
left a comment
wpaulino
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
An alternative approach would be to modify the historical sync interval in the integration tests, though I think this is still useful given the following scenario: if you've lost all your peers and start receiving new updates at tip, you won't be able to process some of these channels if you've yet to see their channel announcement, so performing a historical sync before doing so would make sense.
LGTM 📦
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: seems like a redundant comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: would prefer if this commit was squashed with what introduced the behavior.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer splitting a bugfix and the test reproducing the bug in separate commits. Especially when I'm reviewing this makes it easy to cherry-pick the test commit on master to exercise the failing scenario.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure but that wasn't the case here. The non-test changes alone didn't have an impact on the tests 😛
cfromknecht
left a comment
cfromknecht
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM after squash! ✅
538b403 to
9c9ac36
Compare
To handle the case where we have been without peers, and get a new connection, we reset the historical scan booleans when the first active syncer is connected to trigger another historical sync.
…nect TestSyncManagerHistoricalSyncOnReconnect tests that the sync manager will re-trigger a historical sync when a new peer connects after a historical sync has completed, but we have lost all peers.
9c9ac36 to
6ba6982
Compare
3 participants
To handle the case where we have been without peers, and get a new
connection, we reset the historical scan booleans when the first active
syncer is connected to trigger another historical sync.
This would cause integration tests to be flaky (especially with Neutrino), since we would risk not getting graph updates after having being disconnected.