feat(routing): allow-offline with routing put

[laurentsenta]

sister PR in kubo: ipfs/kubo#9667

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #278 (b813722) into main (268cad8) will decrease coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #278      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.88%   47.82%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         273      274       +1     
  Lines       33186    33237      +51     
==========================================
+ Hits        15890    15895       +5     
- Misses      15616    15665      +49     
+ Partials     1680     1677       -3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
coreiface/options/routing.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
coreiface/tests/api.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
coreiface/tests/dht.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
coreiface/tests/name.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
coreiface/tests/pubsub.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
coreiface/tests/routing.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

[Jorropo]

Is ipfs/kubo#9667 correct ? I don't see how this relates

[laurentsenta]

@Jorropo yup: ipfs/kubo@290f29a

[BigLep]

@hacdias : can you please look at this again so we can get it merged?

[hacdias]

Thanks @laurentsenta. This looks good to me.

I would like to see a test for this in coreiface/tests/routing.go but I'm not sure how easy that would be. I think by using tp.MakeAPISwarm(ctx, true, 1) you'll be able to spin an offline node and therefore Put should work with AllowOffline(true) but not without. Note that this tests are run in Kubo's repo.

[laurentsenta]

@hacdias thanks for taking the time to review both PRs,

From a quick look + tests:

• There is some coupling between online and full identity in the node init

I'll dig some more, but let me know if you've seen this before: when I try to start a node with full identity AND offline, I get a sigsev

panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x2 addr=0x40 pc=0x10131ab08]

goroutine 773 [running]:
github.com/ipfs/kubo/core/bootstrap.bootstrapRound({0x102732a98?, 0x14000a88640?}, {0x0, 0x0}, {0x14000315fb0?, 0x0?, 0x140003a6330?, 0x14000322fe0?})
	/Users/laurent/dev/plabs/ipfs/kubo/core/bootstrap/bootstrap.go:118 +0x68
github.com/ipfs/kubo/core/bootstrap.Bootstrap.func1({0x102741478?, 0x140004f5320?})
	/Users/laurent/dev/plabs/ipfs/kubo/core/bootstrap/bootstrap.go:89 +0xac
github.com/jbenet/goprocess.(*process).Go.func1()
	/Users/laurent/dev/go/pkg/mod/github.com/jbenet/goprocess@v0.1.4/impl-mutex.go:134 +0x3c
created by github.com/jbenet/goprocess.(*process).Go
	/Users/laurent/dev/go/pkg/mod/github.com/jbenet/goprocess@v0.1.4/impl-mutex.go:133 +0x204
FAIL	github.com/ipfs/kubo/core/coreapi/test	0.856s
FAIL

• Currently, the "sane" way to create an IPNS entry is by going through Publish + Get (that's what the test for Put does); that might be the right time to extract that code from the Publish function. We had a similar discussion about verify and unmarshall.

[hacdias]

@laurentsenta I've never seen this error before, and it might be a bug? It seems like host is nil, which seems to make sense since we do not set PeerHost in IpfsNode. It seems like we'll need to make a few changes to the test function in Kubo to ensure we can have an offline and full identity node. But first, do we need full identity here?

Currently, the "sane" way to create an IPNS entry is by going through Publish + Get (that's what the test for Put does); that might be the right time to extract that code from the Publish function.

Do you mean a Create function?