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

feat: lotus-provider: storage find command #11653

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 27, 2024
Merged

Conversation

magik6k
Copy link
Contributor

@magik6k magik6k commented Feb 24, 2024

Related Issues

Proposed Changes

This PR adds a simple storage find command, similar to the one in lotus-miner, but with multi-miner support

Additional Info

Example output:

$ ./lotus-provider cli storage find f02620 10
In 74e1d667-7bc9-49bc-a9a6-0c30afd8684c (cache, sealed, unsealed)
        Sealing: false; Storage: true
        Remote
        URL: http://10.99.16.6:12300/remote/unsealed/s-t02620-10

Checklist

Before you mark the PR ready for review, please make sure that:

  • Commits have a clear commit message.
  • PR title is in the form of of <PR type>: <area>: <change being made>
    • example: fix: mempool: Introduce a cache for valid signatures
    • PR type: fix, feat, build, chore, ci, docs, perf, refactor, revert, style, test
    • area, e.g. api, chain, state, market, mempool, multisig, networking, paych, proving, sealing, wallet, deps
  • If the PR affects users (e.g., new feature, bug fix, system requirements change), update the CHANGELOG.md and add details to the UNRELEASED section.
  • New features have usage guidelines and / or documentation updates in
  • Tests exist for new functionality or change in behavior
  • CI is green

@magik6k magik6k requested a review from a team as a code owner February 24, 2024 10:15
@snadrus snadrus merged commit 83c7e05 into master Feb 27, 2024
88 checks passed
@snadrus snadrus deleted the feat/lp-storage-find branch February 27, 2024 13:46
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