Skip to content

Conversation

@dakom
Copy link
Collaborator

@dakom dakom commented Jan 6, 2026

Builds on top of #1106
Followed by #1108

Adds local p2p dev setup with mDNS and completes the e2e test setup to prove that it works

@dakom dakom mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026
@dakom dakom changed the base branch from main to p2p-part-2 January 6, 2026 17:58
@dakom dakom mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026
@dakom dakom force-pushed the p2p-part-3 branch 2 times, most recently from 2f69f2f to 554f2e1 Compare January 6, 2026 18:34
@dakom dakom changed the title [DNM/WIP] P2P - Part 3 P2P - Part 3 Jan 6, 2026
@dakom dakom marked this pull request as ready for review January 7, 2026 14:21
Copy link
Member

@ueco-jb ueco-jb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great work!
One other thing that is puzzling me a little is using a DefaultHasher, IIRC it was not advised to be actually used in distributed networks (or maybe I'm overdramatizing).
https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/std/hash/random.rs.html#99-104
I'm thinking about a hypothetical case where we do a partial upgrade of the network and some of the nodes are running a different (although compatible) version. But even in the worst case that would only increase an amount of duplicated (ignored) messages.

@dakom
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dakom commented Jan 9, 2026

One other thing that is puzzling me a little is using a DefaultHasher

idk, but it's what they use in their example, so I assume it's fine for our purposes: https://github.com/libp2p/rust-libp2p/blob/5e3519fb66b92c7f7c0dc744ab360fd8b669fe54/examples/chat/src/main.rs#L62

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.

3 participants