Skip to content

Add alternative provider retrieval measurement #571

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

Open
wants to merge 20 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 13 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
36 changes: 33 additions & 3 deletions api/index.js
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -98,6 +98,16 @@ const createMeasurement = async (req, res, client) => {
validate(measurement, 'stationId', { type: 'string', required: true })
assert(measurement.stationId.match(/^[0-9a-fA-F]{88}$/), 400, 'Invalid Station ID')

if (measurement.alternativeProviderCheck) {
validate(measurement, 'alternativeProviderCheck', { type: 'object', required: false })
validate(measurement.alternativeProviderCheck, 'statusCode', { type: 'number', required: false })
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This will produce a confusing error message when the validation fails - the message will mention only statusCode but not alternativeProviderCheck.

I think the nicest solution would be to improve validate to support nested parameters, but that feels like too much work to me.

Suggested change
validate(measurement.alternativeProviderCheck, 'statusCode', { type: 'number', required: false })
validate(measurement, 'alternativeProviderCheck.statusCode', { type: 'number', required: false })

Even better solution is to use JSON Schema validation offered by Fastify, but we don't use fastify here yet. Should we take over #549 to land it first and then continue with this pull request? That does not feel like the fastest way to shipping this feature either :(

How much work would it be to rework the validation to use JSON Schema in this route only, as an interim solution until we land the migration to Fastify?

const MEASUREMENT_SCHEMA = {
  // JSON schema of the measurement
  // We will be able to use this with Fastify later
}

const createMeasurement = async (req, res, client) => {
  const body = await getRawBody(req, { limit: '100kb' })
  const measurement = JSON.parse(body.toString())
  const valid = ajv.validate(schema, data)
  if (!valid) {
    // report errors back to the client 
    // console.log(ajv.errors)
  }
  
  // Some validations cannot be described in JSON Schema
  if (typeof measurement.participantAddress === 'string' && measurement.participantAddress.startsWith('f4')) {
  try {
    measurement.participantAddress = ethAddressFromDelegated(measurement.participantAddress)
  } catch (err) {
    assert.fail(400, 'Invalid .participantAddress - doesn\'t convert to 0x address')
    }
  }

  // etc.

Let's discuss!

validate(measurement.alternativeProviderCheck, 'timeout', { type: 'boolean', required: false })
validate(measurement.alternativeProviderCheck, 'carTooLarge', { type: 'boolean', required: false })
validate(measurement.alternativeProviderCheck, 'endAt', { type: 'date', required: false })
validate(measurement.alternativeProviderCheck, 'protocol', { type: 'string', required: false })
validate(measurement.alternativeProviderCheck, 'providerId', { type: 'string', required: false })
}

const inetGroup = await mapRequestToInetGroup(client, req)
logNetworkInfo(req.headers, measurement.stationId, recordNetworkInfoTelemetry)

Expand All @@ -124,10 +134,16 @@ const createMeasurement = async (req, res, client) => {
indexer_result,
miner_id,
provider_id,
alternative_provider_check_status_code,
alternative_provider_check_timeout,
alternative_provider_check_car_too_large,
alternative_provider_check_end_at,
alternative_provider_check_protocol,
alternative_provider_check_provider_id,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Throwing this out there: We could alternatively implement this in such a way that after the alternative provider check has been completed, two measurements will have been created. One would link to the other. This would save us from having to duplicate the measurement schema inside itself. I don't think this is worth it yet though

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No that suggestion is really not important since spark-api's business is just buffering measurements until it flushes them again. If anything, we should discuss this in a repo that's further down the data processing pipeline

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was thinking about this a bit and you are right. What started of as adding one field (status code for alternative retrieval) turned up into duplicating code a lot. We might be better off with adding a relationship between columns in the measurements table between regular and alternative provider check. That way we could avoid duplicating code down the processing and evaluation pipeline.

completed_at_round
)
SELECT
$1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, $11, $12, $13, $14, $15, $16, $17, $18, $19, $20, $21,
$1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7, $8, $9, $10, $11, $12, $13, $14, $15, $16, $17, $18, $19, $20, $21, $22, $23, $24, $25, $26, $27
id as completed_at_round
FROM spark_rounds
ORDER BY id DESC
Expand All @@ -154,7 +170,13 @@ const createMeasurement = async (req, res, client) => {
measurement.carChecksum,
measurement.indexerResult,
measurement.minerId,
measurement.providerId
measurement.providerId,
measurement.alternativeProviderCheck?.statusCode,
measurement.alternativeProviderCheck?.timeout,
measurement.alternativeProviderCheck?.carTooLarge ?? false,
measurement.alternativeProviderCheck?.endAt,
measurement.alternativeProviderCheck?.protocol,
measurement.alternativeProviderCheck?.provider_id
])
json(res, { id: rows[0].id })
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -190,7 +212,15 @@ const getMeasurement = async (req, res, client, measurementId) => {
endAt: resultRow.end_at,
byteLength: resultRow.byte_length,
carTooLarge: resultRow.car_too_large,
attestation: resultRow.attestation
attestation: resultRow.attestation,
alternativeProviderCheck: {
statusCode: resultRow.alternative_provider_check_status_code,
timeout: resultRow.alternative_provider_check_timeout,
carTooLarge: resultRow.alternative_provider_check_car_too_large,
endAt: resultRow.alternative_provider_check_end_at,
protocol: resultRow.alternative_provider_check_protocol,
providerId: resultRow.alternative_provider_check_provider_id
}
})
}

Expand Down
19 changes: 18 additions & 1 deletion api/test/test.js
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -38,7 +38,15 @@ const VALID_MEASUREMENT = {
carChecksum: 'somehash',
minerId: 'f02abc',
providerId: 'provider-pubkey',
indexerResult: 'OK'
indexerResult: 'OK',
alternativeProviderCheck: {
statusCode: 200,
timeout: false,
carTooLarge: false,
endAt: new Date(),
protocol: 'graphsync',
providerId: 'alt-provider-pubkey'
}
}

const assertResponseStatus = async (res, status) => {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -194,6 +202,15 @@ describe('Routes', () => {
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.miner_id, measurement.minerId)
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.provider_id, measurement.providerId)
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.station_id, measurement.stationId)
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.alternative_provider_check_status_code, measurement.alternativeProviderCheck.statusCode)
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.alternative_provider_check_timeout, measurement.alternativeProviderCheck.timeout)
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.alternative_provider_check_car_too_large, measurement.alternativeProviderCheck.carTooLarge)
assert.strictEqual(
measurementRow.alternative_provider_check_end_at.toJSON(),
measurement.alternativeProviderCheck.endAt.toJSON()
)
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.alternative_provider_check_protocol, measurement.alternativeProviderCheck.protocol)
assert.strictEqual(measurementRow.alternative_provider_check_provider_id, measurement.alternativeProviderCheck.providerId)
})

it('allows older format with walletAddress', async () => {
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
ALTER TABLE measurements
ADD COLUMN alternative_provider_check_status_code INTEGER,
ADD COLUMN alternative_provider_check_timeout BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT FALSE,
ADD COLUMN alternative_provider_check_car_too_large BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT FALSE,
ADD COLUMN alternative_provider_check_end_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
ADD COLUMN alternative_provider_check_protocol protocol,
ADD COLUMN alternative_provider_check_provider_id TEXT;
Loading