Open
Conversation
aee9cae to
27c8d94
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Update of #478 using the new websocket of full node and the
WsClientThis PR needs the latest version of that node PR
the strategy stay the same:
BlockFlowSyncServiceas usualwebsocket syncing
as we always make sure the parents are downloaded before inserting new blocks.
move back to http syncing. This can happen in case of network issue,
this is safer as we could suddenly receive lots of message through the
websocket and the DB can't follow (happen once in my tests)
syncing.
The main idea is to always rely and fall back on our BlockFlowSyncService which is well tested in production.
I tried various edge cases, like cutting my network etc.
Still require some testing and extracting some config values