-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
feat(code): Add support for FloodSub as an alternative to GossipSub #352
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #352 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 83.58% 82.77% -0.81%
==========================================
Files 88 90 +2
Lines 6030 6146 +116
==========================================
+ Hits 5040 5087 +47
- Misses 990 1059 +69
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Depends on this PR in libp2p, though we can already merge as-is if we want since we do not intend to publish to crates.io anytime soon. |
6f58538
to
23dd4c9
Compare
How worst is the performance in this case? I am curious. In particular if we connect all nodes (at libp2p level), which I assume we do. |
Locally, I don't see any difference. We haven't tested this in QA yet. We probably want to use #354 instead anyway |
Closing this in favor of #354 |
Closes: #XXX
Do not try, not working yet.
PR author checklist