Skip to content
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

Always include peer ID in the multiaddrs returned by Transports protocol query #1555

Closed
4 of 9 tasks
masih opened this issue Jul 7, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1568
Closed
4 of 9 tasks

Always include peer ID in the multiaddrs returned by Transports protocol query #1555

masih opened this issue Jul 7, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1568
Assignees
Labels
kind/enhancement Kind: Enhancement

Comments

@masih
Copy link
Member

masih commented Jul 7, 2023

Checklist

  • This is not a new feature or an enhancement to the Filecoin protocol. If it is, please open an FIP issue.
  • This is not brainstorming ideas. If you have an idea you'd like to discuss, please open a new discussion on the Boost forum and select the category as Ideas.
  • I have a specific, actionable, and well motivated feature request to propose.

Boost component

  • boost daemon - storage providers
  • boost client
  • boost UI
  • boost data-transfer
  • boost index-provider
  • Other

What is the motivation behind this feature request? Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Boost Transports protocol offers a way to query the list of transports offered by a node. However the multiaddrs returned by the transports do not always contain the peer ID over which the data can be retrieved.

Peer ID is only included when the addrs are populated from a libp2p host that is separate from node's host. This is because Host.Addrs() does not include peer ID in the returned addrs.

Describe the solution you'd like

Always include peer ID in the multiaddrs returned. This removes the need for implicit assumption that when peer ID is not specified it should be the same as node peer ID.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Not doing this would require extra interaction to get the peer ID of the node.

Additional context

No response

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/enhancement Kind: Enhancement
Projects
Status: Done
2 participants