graph: refactor Builder network message handling #9534
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are limited to specific labels. 🏷️ Labels to auto review (1)
Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
bhandras
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2025
graph/builder.go
Outdated
| if err != nil { | ||
| // Log as a debug message if this is not an error we need to be | ||
| // concerned about. | ||
| if IsError(err, ErrIgnored, ErrOutdated) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: the logging block could be extracted to a helper function so that any later changes affect all updates handlers.
The exposed AddNode, AddEdge and UpdateEdge methods of the Builder are currently synchronous since even though they pass messages to the network handler which spins off the handling in a goroutine, the public methods still wait for a response from the handling before returning. The only part that is actually done asynchronously is the topology notifications. We previously tried to simplify things in [this commit](lightningnetwork@d757b3b) but we soon realised that there was a reason for sending the messages to the central/synchronous network handler first: it was to ensure consistency for topology clients: ie, the ordering between when there is a new topology client or if it is cancelled needs to be consistent and handled synchronously with new network updates. So for example, if a new update comes in right after a topology client cancels its subscription, then it should _not_ be notified. Similariy for new subscriptions. So this commit was reverted soon after. We can, however, still simplify things as is done in this commit by noting that _only topology subscriptions and notifications_ need to be handled separately. The actual network updates do not need to. So that is what is done here. This refactor will make moving the topology subscription logic to a new subsystem later on much easier.
kornpow
pushed a commit
to kornpow/lnd
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
graph: refactor Builder network message handling
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The exposed
AddNode,AddEdgeandUpdateEdgemethods of the Builder are currently synchronous since even though they pass messages to the network handler which spins off the handling in a goroutine, the public methods still wait for a response from the handling before returning. The only part that is actually done asynchronously is the topology notifications.We previously tried to simplify things in this
commit but we soon realised that there was a reason for sending the messages to the central/synchronous network handler first: it was to ensure consistency for topology clients: ie, the ordering between when there is a new topology client or if it is cancelled needs to be consistent and handled synchronously with new network updates. So for example, if a new update comes in right after a topology client cancels its subscription, then it should not be notified. Similarly for new subscriptions. So this commit was reverted soon after.
We can, however, still simplify things as is done in this commit by noting that only topology subscriptions and notifications need to be handled separately. The actual network updates do not need to. So that is what is done here.
This refactor will make moving the topology subscription logic to a new subsystem later on much easier. Another reason we want to do this is in preparation for a
context.Contextbeing passed through from these exposed methods right through to the persistence calls.This covers one commit in #9529
This is part of #9494