Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

quic: remove experimental status and add it to the default config #7349

Merged

Conversation

RubenKelevra
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@RubenKelevra RubenKelevra marked this pull request as draft May 22, 2020 02:08
@RubenKelevra RubenKelevra force-pushed the feat/quic_remove_experimental_status branch from f3d6fed to 0898be4 Compare May 22, 2020 02:16
@Stebalien
Copy link
Member

You'll also need to change DefaultTransports in core/node/libp2p/transport.go to simpleOpt(libp2p.ChainOptions(libp2p.DefaultTransports, libpp2quic.NewTransport)).

@RubenKelevra RubenKelevra force-pushed the feat/quic_remove_experimental_status branch from 0898be4 to 2dc1f69 Compare May 22, 2020 02:54
@RubenKelevra RubenKelevra marked this pull request as ready for review May 22, 2020 06:16
@RubenKelevra
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Stebalien The private network test is expected to fail since QUIC doesn't support private networks. I guess we have to modify this test, to remove QUIC from it.

@Stebalien
Copy link
Member

@RubenKelevra hm, I forgot about that. I think we need to avoid constructing the QUIC transport when a swarm key is present.

@RubenKelevra
Copy link
Contributor Author

Or we just turn QUIc only on, if we're starting to listening on a QUIC port.

This way the user can determine if he/she wants QUIC with the listening definition.

Since the test only listens to TCP it wouldn't fail in this case.

Feel free to push the commit here, if you decided on that. Both is a bit over my head right now :)

@Stebalien Stebalien merged commit 413ab31 into ipfs:master May 23, 2020
@RubenKelevra RubenKelevra deleted the feat/quic_remove_experimental_status branch May 23, 2020 00:51
@Stebalien Stebalien mentioned this pull request May 26, 2020
77 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants