Pin ls traverses all indirect pins #6705
Conversation
|
Ideally we should merge the tests (ipfs/interface-go-ipfs-core#47) before merging this so that we can reference the tests from go-ipfs. However, I'm not picky on ordering here as long as the tests actually end up running on the CoreAPI code. |
A lot of the complexity/lines of code comes from using channels instead of an emit function in Also, the point of the deduplication here was to make testing easier (easier to test CoreAPI then commands lib) and reduce the chance of introducing weird bugs due to having fixed code in one place but not another. |
| if err != nil { | ||
| return nil, err | ||
| go func() { | ||
| defer close(ch) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given the way this function is currently called, this can hide errors: we can observe this channel closing before we read the error off the error channel.
It's generally safer to just use a "result" channel. That makes it easier to call this function as the for x := range myCh syntax can be used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alternatively, we can close both the error and normal channels and, instead of listening on the error channel, run err := <-errCh after finishing the normal loop.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I did what you asked here, lmk.
core/coreapi/pin.go
Outdated
| err := merkledag.Walk(ctx, merkledag.GetLinksWithDAG(dag), k, func(c cid.Cid) bool { | ||
| r := indirectKeys.Visit(c) | ||
| if r && keys.Visit(c) { | ||
| ch <- &pinInfo{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
now checks on context
|
@aschmahmann bump (when you get a chance). |
aschmahmann
force-pushed
the
fix/6527
branch
from
219cf2d
to
1e6c67c
Compare
|
@Stebalien I think we should just squash these commits when we're ready for merge. Lmk and we can finish any last issues with this PR. |
…ecedence change - a direct/recursive pin is now labeled as such even if also indirectly pinned.
core/coreapi/pin.go
Outdated
| for _, v := range keys { | ||
| out = append(out, v) | ||
| } | ||
| if typeStr != "all" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs a comment explaining why we're doing this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also inverted the test to if typeStr == "indirect" to make it clear that we're skipping this because we only care about indirect pins.
pin lssoon and then this will be easy)Changes 1 and 3 need to be tested, and I will submit a PR for a CoreAPI test (if we want a sharness test we can do that as well, but it seems like overkill). Since the CoreAPI tests all live in interface-go-ipfs-core this test should probably be there as well.
@Stebalien