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

feat(code): Add support for FloodSub as an alternative to GossipSub #352

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

romac
Copy link
Member

@romac romac commented Aug 30, 2024

Closes: #XXX

Do not try, not working yet.


PR author checklist

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 30, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 58.22222% with 94 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.77%. Comparing base (6cb9578) to head (23dd4c9).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
code/crates/gossip-consensus/src/lib.rs 38.95% 58 Missing ⚠️
code/crates/gossip-consensus/src/channel.rs 60.00% 16 Missing ⚠️
code/crates/gossip-consensus/src/behaviour.rs 80.85% 9 Missing ⚠️
code/crates/gossip-consensus/src/pubsub.rs 75.76% 8 Missing ⚠️
code/crates/actors/src/gossip_consensus.rs 50.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
code/crates/starknet/app/src/spawn.rs 66.67% 1 Missing ⚠️
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     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 83.02% <58.22%> (-0.83%) ⬇️
mbt 22.91% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@romac
Copy link
Member Author

romac commented Sep 6, 2024

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.

@romac romac marked this pull request as ready for review September 6, 2024 09:17
@cason
Copy link
Contributor

cason commented Sep 9, 2024

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.

@romac
Copy link
Member Author

romac commented Sep 9, 2024

Locally, I don't see any difference. We haven't tested this in QA yet. We probably want to use #354 instead anyway

@romac
Copy link
Member Author

romac commented Sep 10, 2024

Closing this in favor of #354

@romac romac closed this Sep 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants