go-libp2p-pubsub
go-libp2p-pubsub copied to clipboard
libp2p
with gossipsub subscribers may not receive the first couple of messages
While trying to sync js repos with go-ipfs 0.5.x i notice pubsub tests were failing for js-ipfs-http-client the specific test works like this:
- peer1 swarm connects to peer2
- peer1 and peer2 subscribe to topicA
- peer2 runs ipfs.pubsub.peers() multiple times until it sees peer1
- peer2 publishes a msg to the topic
- test asserts that both peers receive the msg
So this test started to fail with go-ipfs 0.5 talking to @aschmahmann we discovered that this behaviour is due to 0.5 defaulting to gossipsub because with floodsub the test passes.
To make the test pass with gossipsub i needed to add a ~2s (may work with less just a random number) delay between step 3 and 4.
Can we remove the need for that delay and make gossipsub work like floodsub ?
issue https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/issues/3030 pr https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/pull/3013
This is probably because "peers" is all peers we know that speak the topic while we really care about "grafted peers".
There's a new publish option WithReadyness(MinTopicSize(1)) that would allow us to require at least one peer before we let the publish succeed. However, that will stall if we're offline.
Yes, it will take a heartbeat for the new peer to get grafted, which is by default 1s.
Well, ListPeers returns all the known peers that speak the same pubsub protocol(s) as us.
It would be a breaking change in behavior to only return peers in the mesh -- perhaps we can add a new method that has the desired behavior.
@vyzo that sounds great! @Stebalien is this something we can bubble up to go-ipfs ? maybe in a arg like ipfs pubsub peers --grafted
Yes, it will take a heartbeat for the new peer to get grafted, which is by default 1s.
We shouldn't need to wait.
This needs to be fixed the right way: https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/issues/7350
where can i follow this issue? the one you mentioned is already closed does that mean its already in master ?
Actually, the delay has been fixed in v0.3.0: https://github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-pubsub/blob/master/gossipsub.go#L952
So when we join, we immediately graft some peers.
Actually, the delay has been fixed in v0.3.0:
This is biting us in the interop tests too, where the delay needs to be longer than 2s, more like ~10s~ ~20s~. Actually who knows, it seems to vary wildly.
As it's fixed in go-libp2p-pubsub master will the fix ship in go-IPFS 0.6.x?
It looks like these interop tests are failing with go-IPFS master, even though the build step says it succeeded: https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/ipfs/go-ipfs/2908/workflows/0b7a5ebf-cb6c-4960-b19e-fd4c1b61983c/jobs/34278
Would it please be possible to have some way of getting the list of peers who are likely to receive a pubsub message for a given topic? That would unblock us and fix the interop tests which can then be made to fail the go-ipfs build if compatibility is broken again.
Getting a list of peers for a topic when those peers may not receive a message sent to the topic because they aren't grafted is not very useful.
Actually, if you enable flood publishing in gsv1.1 (WithFloodPublish option), all the direct peers and not just the ones in the mesh will receive any messages you publish (modulo dropped messages of course).
We can still add a ListMeshPeers (or some other better name) interface if you can't or don't want to enable flood publishing.
ipfs pubsub peers ... given a topic, will list connected peers who are subscribed to the named topic.
I think if you provide a method that claims to return the peers subscribed to a topic, then send a message to that topic and those peers do not receive the message, the user is likely to encounter significant surprise.
Yes, that's true -- we'll have to update if we add a different interface. But I really do recommend enabling flood publishing, it's a security feature of the protocol.
Flood publishing for the first hop sounds reasonable.
https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/pull/7394
https://github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-pubsub/issues/331#issuecomment-635884194
:roll_eyes: https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/pull/7395