status-im
/
nim-codex
mirror of https://github.com/status-im/nim-codex.git
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Marks cancel-presence situation with todo comment.

This commit is contained in:
Ben 2024-12-09 09:14:49 +01:00
parent 7e4182ef12
commit c3c04e84df
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 0F16E812E736C24B
1 changed files with 8 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

9
codex/blockexchange/engine/engine.nim
View File

@ -412,8 +412,15 @@ proc wantListHandler*(
if not e.cancel:
peerCtx.peerWants.add(e)
# Important TODO! (See https://github.com/codex-storage/nim-codex/pull/1019#issuecomment-2525089803 )
# The if type==WantHave (below) is NOT nested behind the if not cancel (above) on purpose!
# This means we send presence-lists in response to cancel messages.
# Not doing so will degrade the performance by more than an order of magnitude.
# TODO: Investigate WHY the presence list has such a performance impact.
# (Sending a presence-list in response to a cancel is not according to spec and should be removed
# once the performance impact mystery is understood and solved.)
if e.wantType == WantType.WantHave:
# does this happen for cancels?!
# Respond to wantHaves immediately.
let
have = await e.address in b.localStore
price = @(