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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

coreapi/unixfs: in /add, don't setup a MFS root with a mock #10183

Draft

MichaelMure wants to merge 1 commit into ipfs:master from MichaelMure:simplify-add

Contributor

MichaelMure commented Oct 20, 2023

It seems to me that this section of the code is unnecessary as a similar setup would be done in the adder already.

Additionally that would avoid using a test mock, which is questionable to begin with.


          coreapi/unixfs: in /add, don't setup a MFS root with a mock

e8e51f2

It seems to me that this section of the code is unnecessary as a similar setup would be done [in the adder](https://github.com/ipfs/kubo/blob/a7c65184976e8717ac23d7efaa5b0d477ad15deb/core/coreunix/add.go#L86-L101) already.

Additionally that would avoid using a test mock, which is questionable to begin with.

MichaelMure requested a review from a team as a code owner

October 20, 2023 11:59

MichaelMure marked this pull request as draft

October 20, 2023 14:33

Contributor Author

MichaelMure commented Oct 20, 2023

Back to draft as this fails the CI. My assumption was obviously wrong, but I'll use that PR to discuss.

If I get that right:

with --only-hash, we still want to simulate what would happen with MFS, I assume to return the proper hash
to do so, we need a MFS with a root dir around
the problem with the only-hash code path is that we push blocks to null datastore, so there is no MFS root stored there
to workaround the problem, another DagService is created with an in-memory datastore, specifically to store that empty MFS root, to be pulled later in the adder

Now, I don't understand why we do this ? Why not just wrap in an empty unixfsdir? Why even wrap?

Would there be a way to simplify that code?

BigLep mentioned this pull request

Release 0.24 #10043

Closed

11 tasks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment