There are two areas where we can be more tolerant of delegate namespaces
being missing or not validating:
1. Calculating the canonical HEAD
2. Fetching from a remote
In 1. the protocol is tolerant in that if the local node does not have
the default branch for a delegate, it will still attempt to use any of
the delegates it does have to reach the threshold.
This is made safe by ensuring that if the threshold is being updated
then the node performing the update must have a threshold of delegates
locally in their storage. It also made safe by 2.
In 2. the protocol is tolerant by allowing delegates to be missing
from the serving side, as long as they can still meet a threshold of
delegates. This is further tolerant, when validating the received
data, a threshold of delegates are valid to consider the fetch
successful -- otherwise it will fail.
Signed-off-by: Fintan Halpenny <fintan.halpenny@gmail.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
We were using the two pretty interchangeably. "Project" should only be
used to refer to the repository payload. "Repository" should be used
when referring to the resource that is fetched, synced, cloned, checked
out etc.
Add a test to show the behaviour of setting up 3 delegates, through two
seed nodes -- ensuring that commands are still operational after
accepting a delegate that the node is missing.
The two seeds are setup with two different scopes:
- `Scope::All`
- `Scope::Followed`
This is to show that the network has eventual consistency once there
is a way to fetch any other node's fork in the network.
The setup of the test is:
- Alice adds Bob as a delegate
- Bob adds Eve as a delegate
- Alice accepts Bob's changes
Alice is able to get Eve's fork through the `Scope::All` seed. The
`Scope::Followed` seed will then be able get Eve's fork once any other
node syncs with it, in this case Eve.
Signed-off-by: Fintan Halpenny <fintan.halpenny@gmail.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Fintan Halpenny
cloudhead