Check blob key from disperser against actual key #1109
Conversation
Signed-off-by: litt3 <102969658+litt3@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changes LGTM, but the DisperseBlob function is getting big and unweildy. Might be good to refactor at some point, create some functions to abstract some of the stuff out. Would need to think through best way to do this.
Your code here could clearly fit in a function though, for eg.
Signed-off-by: litt3 <102969658+litt3@users.noreply.github.com>
@samlaf Good point. Split the blob key check into a separate function 617cbd5b |
api/clients/v2/disperser_client.go
Outdated
| // the blob header which was constructed locally and sent to the disperser | ||
| blobHeader *corev2.BlobHeader, | ||
| // the reply received back from the disperser | ||
| disperserReply *disperser_rpc.DisperseBlobReply) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| disperserReply *disperser_rpc.DisperseBlobReply) error { | |
| disperserReply *disperser_rpc.DisperseBlobReply, | |
| ) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we should probably have a formatter to make the code standardized everywhere. I personally prefer this formatting, but I'm fine with whatever, just suggesting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have a strong preference here. Strongly agree, though, that this is the sort of thing that ought to be managed by a standard formatter.
Signed-off-by: litt3 <102969658+litt3@users.noreply.github.com>
| func verifyReceivedBlobKey( | ||
| // the blob header which was constructed locally and sent to the disperser | ||
| blobHeader *corev2.BlobHeader, | ||
| // the reply received back from the disperser | ||
| disperserReply *disperser_rpc.DisperseBlobReply, | ||
| ) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit, would a simple unit test be possible? i.e. check both a valid and invalid header
Signed-off-by: litt3 <102969658+litt3@users.noreply.github.com>
Why are these changes needed?
DisperseBlobmatches what was sent #1100Checks