1
0
mirror of https://github.com/ipfs/kubo.git synced 2025-09-09 11:12:21 +08:00

6 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
d7dab3afea Use gx vendored go-ipfs-utils where possible
For the rest of the packages in util, move them to thirdparty
and update the references. util is gone!

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Jeromy <jeromyj@gmail.com>
2016-02-12 17:21:40 -08:00
0e312f5caf initial vendoring of libp2p outside of the repo with gx
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Jeromy <jeromyj@gmail.com>
2016-01-30 09:34:06 -08:00
f209763357 blockservice.New doesnt need to return an error
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Jeromy <jeromyj@gmail.com>
2015-08-14 16:25:51 -07:00
ef294431d4 move util.Key into its own package under blocks 2015-06-01 16:10:08 -07:00
3ead2443e5 namesys: Add recursive resolution
This allows direct access to the earlier protocol-specific Resolve
implementations.  The guts of each protocol-specific resolver are in
the internal resolveOnce method, and we've added a new:

  ResolveN(ctx, name, depth)

method to the public interface.  There's also:

  Resolve(ctx, name)

which wraps ResolveN using DefaultDepthLimit.  The extra API endpoint
is intended to reduce the likelyhood of clients accidentally calling
the more dangerous ResolveN with a nonsensically high or infinite
depth.  On IRC on 2015-05-17, Juan said:

15:34 <jbenet> If 90% of uses is the reduced API with no chance to
  screw it up, that's a huge win.
15:34 <wking> Why would those 90% not just set depth=0 or depth=1,
  depending on which they need?
15:34 <jbenet> Because people will start writing `r.Resolve(ctx, name,
  d)` where d is a variable.
15:35 <wking> And then accidentally set that variable to some huge
  number?
15:35 <jbenet> Grom experience, i've seen this happen _dozens_ of
  times. people screw trivial things up.
15:35 <wking> Why won't those same people be using ResolveN?
15:36 <jbenet> Because almost every example they see will tell them to
  use Resolve(), and they will mostly stay away from ResolveN.

The per-prodocol versions also resolve recursively within their
protocol.  For example:

  DNSResolver.Resolve(ctx, "ipfs.io", 0)

will recursively resolve DNS links until the referenced value is no
longer a DNS link.

I also renamed the multi-protocol ipfs NameSystem (defined in
namesys/namesys.go) to 'mpns' (for Multi-Protocol Name System),
because I wasn't clear on whether IPNS applied to the whole system or
just to to the DHT-based system.  The new name is unambiguously
multi-protocol, which is good.  It would be nice to have a distinct
name for the DHT-based link system.

Now that resolver output is always prefixed with a namespace and
unprefixed mpns resolver input is interpreted as /ipfs/,
core/corehttp/ipns_hostname.go can dispense with it's old manual
/ipfs/ injection.

Now that the Resolver interface handles recursion, we don't need the
resolveRecurse helper in core/pathresolver.go.  The pathresolver
cleanup also called for an adjustment to FromSegments to more easily
get slash-prefixed paths.

Now that recursive resolution with the namesys/namesys.go composite
resolver always gets you to an /ipfs/... path, there's no need for the
/ipns/ special case in fuse/ipns/ipns_unix.go.

Now that DNS links can be things other than /ipfs/ or DHT-link
references (e.g. they could be /ipns/<domain-name> references) I've
also loosened the ParsePath logic to only attempt multihash validation
on IPFS paths.  It checks to ensure that other paths have a
known-protocol prefix, but otherwise leaves them alone.

I also changed some key-stringification from .Pretty() to .String()
following the potential deprecation mentioned in util/key.go.
2015-05-20 08:40:05 -07:00
19823c6704 path/resolver_test: Test recursive Link resolution
Setup a three-level graph:

  a -(child)-> b -(grandchild)-> c

and then try and resolve:

  /ipfs/<hash-of-a>/child/grandchild

Before 10669e8b (path/resolver: Fix recursive path resolution,
2015-05-08) this failed with:

  resolver_test.go:71: no link named "grandchild" under QmSomeRandomHash

The boilerplate for this test is from pin/pin_test.go, and I make no
claims that it's the best way to setup the test graph ;).
2015-05-08 21:43:43 -07:00