adding ipfs / arweave support

[EnzoVezzaro]

• Fixes Add ipfs and arweave storage type support #1711 .

Changes proposed in this PR:

• created storage type dropdown (Url / IPFS / Arweave)
• added storage type selection on publish
• added storage type selection on edit
• updated @oceanprotocol/lib@2.5.2

WIP:

• UI redesign fileInput
• fix IPFS typing issue
• wait for fix provider: IPFS and Arwave
• validation and edit form
• waiting for No ARWEAVE_GATEWAY defined error when using Arweave as provider type provider#555 to test ARWEAVE
• fix failing test after merged main
• finish suggestions on review
  • redesign UI uploader
  • error messages and catch errors
  • cleanup and functionality test
  • tests

TO TEST:

• IPFS: you can upload a file in IPFS using web3.storage (to get CID)
• Arweave: you can use this little app to upload a file into Arweave (to get the transactionID)

Publish

Before validation:

After validation:

Edit

When entered in edit form:

After clicking on "x":

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated
market	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Nov 25, 2022 at 1:39PM (UTC)

[EnzoVezzaro]

Mmmm... weird 🤔 just tried both IPFS / Aweave without issues when publishing. The only think that I found was the same issue we currently have on Priced Assets. Not sure if it's related. Do you know anything else about this issue @bogdanfazakas ?

IPFS free, ok:

Arweave (ignore title, I used an Arweave file here) priced, not ok:

[jamiehewitt15]

I ran another test published on IPFS and it worked fine this time. I'll let you know if I'm able to reproduce it.

[jamiehewitt15]

One thing we should do is explain to people how to go about publishing with Arweave or IPFS. I've created an issue for this in the docs. When that's done we should add a link to the docs section in the tooltip.

[jamiehewitt15]

Also tested publishing a Arweave asset and it worked well 👍

It would be great if we could add a test to this to keep the overall test coverage going up.

[EnzoVezzaro]

It would be great if we could add a test to this to keep the overall test coverage going up.

We already have a test for both IPFS and Arwaeve. I'm kind of rushing a bit this because I need to keep going with the integration of graphql and on-chain data which depends on this PR. Maybe we can add more tests afterwards.

[jamiehewitt15]

We already have a test for both IPFS and Arwaeve. I'm kind of rushing a bit this because I need to keep going with the integration of graphql and on-chain data which depends on this PR. Maybe we can add more tests afterwards.

Yeah, fair enough. I was just seeing that the overall test coverage is going down.

[jamiehewitt15]

Why is it only possible to use a URL for the sample file? People may also want to use IPFS/ Arweave for that

[EnzoVezzaro]

Why is it only possible to use a URL for the sample file? People may also want to use IPFS/ Arweave for that

Maybe it'll be implemented in the future, but for this task is out of scope.

[jamiehewitt15]

Maybe it'll be implemented in the future, but for this task is out of scope.

Ok sure, seems fair enough

[jamiehewitt15]

Have done quite a few tests now and can't find any faults. Works well, good job

[bogdanfazakas]

In terms of functionality all good from my tests, good job with the PR @EnzoVezzaro 👍

[codeclimate]

Code Climate has analyzed commit d273388 and detected 0 issues on this pull request.

The test coverage on the diff in this pull request is 18.6% (50% is the threshold).

This pull request will bring the total coverage in the repository to 21.4% (-0.1% change).

View more on Code Climate.