-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 324
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: show full rpc backend version #1294
Conversation
we now have useful AgentVersion returned by 'ipfs id' Kubo RPC command which allows for including suffix (e.g. in brave). this makes it more obvious that kubo backend is used, and in which version, and removes perception that kubo version === ipfs version
@@ -35,13 +35,9 @@ | |||
"message": "The URL of your local Kubo RPC", | |||
"description": "A label in Node status section of Browser Action pop-up (panel_statusApiAddressTitle)" | |||
}, | |||
"panel_statusGatewayVersion": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ℹ️ this was not used anywhere
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ export default (state, emitter) => { | |||
publicSubdomainGatewayUrl: null, | |||
gatewayAddress: null, | |||
swarmPeers: null, | |||
gatewayVersion: null, | |||
kuboRpcBackendVersion: null, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ℹ️ renamed to make it clear this is version of RPC backend, and not gateway.
(if we want versioned gateways, we should expose gateway-conformance version, but this is future work)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM but we should give @whizzzkid a chance to review before merging
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if it's a good idea to hard code this to kubo
even though it's true for now, we want this to work with any ipfs implementation in the future?
also, nits!
add-on/src/lib/ipfs-companion.js
Outdated
try { | ||
const id = await ipfs.id() | ||
if (id) { | ||
return id.agentVersion | ||
} | ||
} catch (_) { | ||
try { | ||
const v = await ipfs.version() | ||
if (v) { | ||
return v.commit ? v.version + '/' + v.commit : v.version | ||
} | ||
} catch (_) { | ||
} | ||
} | ||
return null | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
❗ woah
try { | |
const id = await ipfs.id() | |
if (id) { | |
return id.agentVersion | |
} | |
} catch (_) { | |
try { | |
const v = await ipfs.version() | |
if (v) { | |
return v.commit ? v.version + '/' + v.commit : v.version | |
} | |
} catch (_) { | |
} | |
} | |
return null | |
} | |
try { | |
const { agentVersion } = await ipfs.id() | |
if (agentVersion) { | |
return agentVersion | |
} | |
const {version, commit} = await ipfs.version() | |
return [version, commit].filter(Boolean).join('/') | |
} catch (_) {} | |
return null | |
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, applied in 90f32c8
Good question @whizzzkid! We want Companion to work with other backends, yes, but currently, the default backend is Kubo-specific, and we should start making it more obvious in the code (makes it easier to refactor in the future, when we add different backends). The Clearly naming Kubo-specific things makes it easier to understand there the line between "generic IPFS" like HTTP Gateways on Other implementations are free to implement endpoint compatible with Kubo RPC and become drop-in replacement (ipfs-cluster does this already), but it is still called "Kubo RPC" as Kubo is the source of truth, and the API is defined at https://docs.ipfs.tech/reference/kubo/rpc/, and has utility limited by Kubo itself (we talk to RPC using a dedicated I think what we want to do over time is to make it more clear that "External" backend today is Kubo-specific, and create room for other implementations and their own RPC protocols (if they decide to use something other than Kubo RPC compatible one). I did nto want to rename other variables to keep this PR easier to review, but I did rename label to "External (Kubo RPC)" in eac436c to make it extra clear to the user that this is "Kubo-compatible" backend. |
Co-authored-by: Nishant Arora <1895906+whizzzkid@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR will try to read version from
ipfs.id
before it falls back toipfs.version
.Rationale:
Preview