-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #238 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 86.84% 85.16% -1.69%
==========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 152 155 +3
==========================================
Hits 132 132
- Misses 20 23 +3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Could you expand on the use case for this a little? My impression of the API for this module was that it abstracts interactions with the block store, encapsulating node serialization, etc so it seems weird to be passing blocks directly into it. It also already has |
Yep for me it was weird to have blockstore inside IPLD, it shouldn't handle persistence only data formats. Also it made no sense to create another Array with map when we can send Blocks directly. This is related to performance work in unixfs so it made sense.
Yes putMany its.. well as you said needs improving. |
|
||
putBatch (blocks, options) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should take IPLD nodes and not blocks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Which is what putMany does.
The problem this PR is addressing will be solved on a different layer. For more information see ipfs-inactive/js-ipfs-unixfs-importer#38. |
This PR add a new method to put Blocks in batch to the datastore.
supports: ipfs-inactive/js-ipfs-unixfs-importer#38