Why is ExtendedPeerInfo private in release-polkadot-v1.6.0?

[Ali-Usama]

I was working on a custom consensus mechanism for Substrate on branch release-polkadot-v1.2.0, but there was a conflict with some of the dependencies due to which I had to upgrade it to the release-polkadot-v1.6.0, and I noticed that ExtendPeerInfo was moved from sc-network-common to sc-network-sync in this PR.

The issue that I'm facing is the ExtendedPeerInfo struct is now under the types module which is private so I can't access its components.

I wanted to ask if this was intentional and if there's any other way to access that struct?

[altonen]

The idea is to get rid of sc-network-common because it doesn't serve a purpose anymore and if sc-network-sync is the only crate that use ExtendedPeerInfo, then that's the right place.

This could have been a simple oversight during refactoring but is there a particular reason you need access to ExtendedPeerInfo?

cc @dmitry-markin

[Ali-Usama]

This could have been a simple oversight during refactoring but is there a particular reason you need access to ExtendedPeerInfo?

Yes, I was using it to get a list of connected peers in release-polkadot-v1.2.0 but it's not accessible in release-polkadot-v1.6.0. If it's a simple oversight, are there any plans to get it fixed soon enough?

[altonen]

Do you want to open a PR, making types public? Otherwise I'll try and fix it at some point this week

[bkchr]

Can you not just copy this type? Is this type somewhere returned by a function?

[Ali-Usama]

Can you not just copy this type? Is this type somewhere returned by a function?

I can't copy it because I'm using this PeerInfo command which expects the ExtendedPeerInfo to be coming from sc-network-sync instead of my local copy.

 if response.send(self.handler.peers_info()).is_err() {
    |                             ---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `sc_network_sync::types::ExtendedPeerInfo<B>`, found `ExtendedPeerInfo<B>`
    |                             |
    |                             arguments to this method are incorrect