Nonblocking storage deals [#80] #194
Conversation
b2c508a to
c1622a6
Compare
c1622a6 to
fe29b07
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Most of the comments are non-blocking but I'd like to see the missing tests get written.
However, there's one big pice I had imagined being part of this that's missing -- breaking up publishing deals. This seems like potentially the most harmful of the "double submit" cases and I think we should cover it.
I think that covers all the messages this module directly submits to the chain, which was the original scope of this ticket.
However, I'm ok with merging this (it's a definite improvement and works) and deferring to a seperate ticket, as long as we make the seperate ticket.
66de90d to
3722225
Compare
- Waiting for storage market funds to appear - Waiting for deals to be published
3722225 to
dc5e001
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## development #194 +/- ##
===============================================
- Coverage 67.15% 67.02% -0.13%
===============================================
Files 40 40
Lines 2161 2231 +70
===============================================
+ Hits 1451 1495 +44
- Misses 601 626 +25
- Partials 109 110 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
* Add more states in Client and Provider FSM representing async ops: - Waiting for storage market funds to appear - Waiting for deals to be published * Publishing deals doesn't block * WaitForFunding state tests for Client, Provider * Remove deal id from the provider node api PublishDeals
Summary
Break apart states such that chain mutating operations are in their own state and don't block. This is groundwork for being able to resume storage deals in progress.
Resolves #80