Improve peer hints for pin remote add #8143
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Note with feedback we got during today's triage: Ok, so (3) is not necessary (already filtered out), (2) is a bit problematic, because in some contexts, those multiaddrs could be useful. This means to make this low-risk, low-controversy PR we shoul limit its behavior to (1). @brianstrauch will you have a moment to refactor it to only do (1) and no multiaddr filtering? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thank you @brianstrauch!
@aschmahmann ready for your final review.
| node, err := cmdenv.GetNode(env) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } | ||
| if node.PeerHost != nil { | ||
|
|
||
| isInBlockstore, err := node.Blockstore.Has(rp.Cid()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lidel this seems fine. I don't think we're introducing any new problems on the CoreAPI/Node boundary, but wanted to double check. WDYT?
The boundary issues we generally run into are that IIRC accessing the node directly doesn't respect the --offline flag, however I think we may already have that issue given that we use node.PeerHost below.
Closes #7915. When running
ipfs pin remote add <cid>,Pin.origins = []If address is loopback, remove address fromPin.originsIf address is inNoAnnounce, remove address fromPin.origins