Skip to content

Send IDONTWANT before first publish #612

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
MarcoPolo merged 3 commits into from
May 20, 2025
Merged

Send IDONTWANT before first publish #612

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7fc52af
Send IDONTWANT before first publish
MarcoPolo May 6, 2025
cf90c94
typo. only spawn hosts we actually will use
MarcoPolo May 8, 2025
2a24b5a
Rename Prevalidation to preprocess
MarcoPolo May 15, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
63 changes: 62 additions & 1 deletion gossipsub_test.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2847,7 +2847,7 @@ var _ RawTracer = &mockRawTracer{}
func TestGossipsubNoIDONTWANTToMessageSender(t *testing.T) {
ctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(context.Background())
defer cancel()
hosts := getDefaultHosts(t, 3)
hosts := getDefaultHosts(t, 2)
denseConnect(t, hosts)

psubs := make([]*PubSub, 2)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2886,6 +2886,67 @@ func TestGossipsubNoIDONTWANTToMessageSender(t *testing.T) {
t.Fatal("IDONTWANT should not be sent to the message sender")
case <-time.After(time.Second):
}
}

func TestGossipsubIDONTWANTBeforeFirstPublish(t *testing.T) {
ctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(context.Background())
defer cancel()
hosts := getDefaultHosts(t, 2)
denseConnect(t, hosts)

psubs := make([]*PubSub, 2)

psubs[0] = getGossipsub(ctx, hosts[0])
rpcsReceived := make(chan string)
psubs[1] = getGossipsub(ctx, hosts[1], WithRawTracer(&mockRawTracer{
onRecvRPC: func(rpc *RPC) {
if len(rpc.GetControl().GetIdontwant()) > 0 {
rpcsReceived <- "idontwant"
}
if len(rpc.GetPublish()) > 0 {
rpcsReceived <- "publish"
}
},
}))

topicString := "foobar"
var topics []*Topic
for _, ps := range psubs {
topic, err := ps.Join(topicString)
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
topics = append(topics, topic)

_, err = ps.Subscribe(topicString)
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
}
time.Sleep(2 * time.Second)

msg := make([]byte, GossipSubIDontWantMessageThreshold+1)
_ = topics[0].Publish(ctx, msg)

timeout := time.After(5 * time.Second)

select {
case kind := <-rpcsReceived:
if kind == "publish" {
t.Fatal("IDONTWANT should be sent before publish")
}
case <-timeout:
t.Fatal("IDONTWANT should be sent on first publish")
}

select {
case kind := <-rpcsReceived:
if kind != "publish" {
t.Fatal("Expected publish after IDONTWANT")
}
case <-timeout:
t.Fatal("Expected publish after IDONTWANT")
}

}

Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions topic.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -349,6 +349,7 @@ func (t *Topic) validate(ctx context.Context, data []byte, opts ...PubOpt) (*Mes
}

msg := &Message{m, "", t.p.host.ID(), pub.validatorData, pub.local}
t.p.rt.PreValidation(t.p.host.ID(), []*Message{msg})
Copy link
Member

@raulk raulk May 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

While we're working on this area, how about we rename PreValidation() to something more accurate/obvious, e.g. DispatchIDONTWANT() or even something more generic like Preprocess() or Intercept()? The spirit of the method just isn't to validate (returns nothing), and it's confusing when juxtaposed with ValidateLocal() ("what validation happens in each?").

Copy link
Collaborator

@vyzo vyzo May 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

names, names, names 🤣

But yes, preprocessing is what it does.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@MarcoPolo MarcoPolo May 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No strong opinion. Preprocess seems fine.

Copy link
Contributor

@ppopth ppopth May 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Preprocess is good for me too and no strong preference about it.

The spirit of the method just isn't to validate (returns nothing), and it's confusing when juxtaposed with ValidateLocal() ("what validation happens in each?").

PreValidation isn't supposed to validate anything. It's supposed to do something before the validation. Maybe it was because of my poor English. I checked the dictionary and it said.

"To prevalidate means to validate or verify something in advance, before it is actually used or implemented"

So you're right. Prevalidate means validate.

err := t.p.val.ValidateLocal(msg)
if err != nil {
return nil, err
Expand Down