retry sending specific messages #4969

qfrank · 2024-03-22T10:57:18Z

Relate mobile issue:

Major changes include:

Added retry functionality for specific message types, such as:

ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_REQUEST_TO_JOIN
ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_EDIT_SHARED_ADDRESSES
ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_CANCEL_REQUEST_TO_JOIN
ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_REQUEST_TO_JOIN_RESPONSE
ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_REQUEST_TO_LEAVE

Replaced ResendAutomatically with ResendType and ResendMethod.
Fixed the rawMessageByID function, which incorrectly calculated Recipients.

status-im-auto · 2024-03-22T11:01:33Z

Jenkins Builds

Click to see older builds (84)

❔	Commit	#️⃣	Finished (UTC)	Duration	Platform	Result
✔️	`6c35a8f`	#1	2024-03-22 11:01:33	~3 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`6c35a8f`	#1	2024-03-22 11:02:48	~5 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`6c35a8f`	#1	2024-03-22 11:03:22	~5 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✖️	`6c35a8f`	#1	2024-03-22 11:18:22	~20 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`0d167d2`	#2	2024-03-22 13:41:20	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✖️	`0d167d2`	#2	2024-03-22 13:42:00	~2 min	`tests`	📄`log`
✔️	`0d167d2`	#2	2024-03-22 13:42:27	~3 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`0d167d2`	#2	2024-03-22 13:45:20	~6 min	`ios`	📦`zip`

❌	`edac513`	#3	2024-03-28 13:54:47	~24 sec	`ios`	📄`log`
❌	`edac513`	#3	2024-03-28 13:56:32	~2 min	`android`	📄`log`
❌	`edac513`	#3	2024-03-28 13:56:52	~2 min	`linux`	📄`log`
✖️	`edac513`	#3	2024-03-28 13:58:32	~4 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`d598e49`	#4	2024-03-28 14:14:36	~3 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`d598e49`	#4	2024-03-28 14:14:44	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`d598e49`	#4	2024-03-28 14:16:53	~5 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✖️	`d598e49`	#4	2024-03-28 14:49:11	~38 min	`tests`	📄`log`
✖️	`d598e49`	#5	2024-03-28 15:49:43	~36 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`6baff87`	#5	2024-03-30 09:44:42	~2 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`6baff87`	#5	2024-03-30 09:46:22	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`6baff87`	#5	2024-03-30 09:46:53	~4 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✖️	`6baff87`	#6	2024-03-30 10:16:41	~34 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✖️	`2fbae93`	#7	2024-03-31 02:45:26	~51 sec	`tests`	📄`log`
✔️	`2fbae93`	#6	2024-03-31 02:46:15	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`2fbae93`	#6	2024-03-31 02:47:18	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`2fbae93`	#6	2024-03-31 02:48:04	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`

✔️	`c884f3c`	#7	2024-03-31 02:59:18	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`c884f3c`	#7	2024-03-31 02:59:55	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`c884f3c`	#7	2024-03-31 03:00:53	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`c884f3c`	#8	2024-03-31 03:38:21	~40 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`421c58b`	#8	2024-04-01 02:00:32	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`421c58b`	#8	2024-04-01 02:01:29	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`421c58b`	#8	2024-04-01 02:02:56	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`421c58b`	#9	2024-04-01 02:39:20	~40 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✖️	`74ee7ef`	#10	2024-04-01 04:05:52	~1 min	`tests`	📄`log`
✔️	`74ee7ef`	#9	2024-04-01 04:06:35	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`74ee7ef`	#9	2024-04-01 04:06:37	~2 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`74ee7ef`	#9	2024-04-01 04:07:43	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`

✔️	`d234dd0`	#10	2024-04-01 04:16:57	~1 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`d234dd0`	#10	2024-04-01 04:17:18	~2 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`d234dd0`	#10	2024-04-01 04:18:07	~2 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`d234dd0`	#11	2024-04-01 04:54:14	~39 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`f43babd`	#11	2024-04-01 08:24:29	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`f43babd`	#11	2024-04-01 08:24:40	~1 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`f43babd`	#11	2024-04-01 08:26:23	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`f43babd`	#12	2024-04-01 09:03:06	~40 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✖️	`b17aa49`	#13	2024-04-06 02:21:41	~1 min	`tests`	📄`log`
✔️	`b17aa49`	#12	2024-04-06 02:22:01	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`b17aa49`	#12	2024-04-06 02:22:44	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`b17aa49`	#12	2024-04-06 02:23:49	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`

✖️	`17ea9ed`	#14	2024-04-06 02:24:21	~56 sec	`tests`	📄`log`
✔️	`17ea9ed`	#13	2024-04-06 02:24:56	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`17ea9ed`	#13	2024-04-06 02:25:31	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`17ea9ed`	#13	2024-04-06 02:27:22	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`

✔️	`3865002`	#14	2024-04-06 02:32:20	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`3865002`	#14	2024-04-06 02:32:34	~1 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`3865002`	#14	2024-04-06 02:33:51	~2 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`3865002`	#15	2024-04-06 03:11:05	~40 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`d487673`	#15	2024-04-06 23:48:52	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`d487673`	#15	2024-04-06 23:49:11	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`d487673`	#15	2024-04-06 23:50:40	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`d487673`	#16	2024-04-07 00:27:28	~40 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`3672759`	#16	2024-04-08 13:01:06	~1 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`3672759`	#16	2024-04-08 13:03:49	~4 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`3672759`	#17	2024-04-08 13:40:26	~41 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`a238ba3`	#17	2024-04-09 12:22:43	~3 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`a238ba3`	#17	2024-04-09 12:24:40	~5 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✖️	`a238ba3`	#18	2024-04-09 12:25:07	~6 min	`tests`	📄`log`
✔️	`a238ba3`	#19	2024-04-09 13:12:11	~40 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`03a1800`	#18	2024-04-10 01:59:18	~3 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`03a1800`	#18	2024-04-10 02:00:37	~5 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`03a1800`	#18	2024-04-10 02:00:54	~5 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✖️	`03a1800`	#20	2024-04-10 02:00:56	~5 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`a3071bd`	#19	2024-04-10 02:20:34	~1 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`a3071bd`	#19	2024-04-10 02:21:03	~2 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`a3071bd`	#19	2024-04-10 02:22:03	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`a3071bd`	#21	2024-04-10 02:58:28	~39 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✖️	`fa3a38a`	#22	2024-04-15 08:35:11	~58 sec	`tests`	📄`log`
✔️	`fa3a38a`	#20	2024-04-15 08:38:12	~4 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`fa3a38a`	#20	2024-04-15 08:38:54	~4 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`fa3a38a`	#20	2024-04-15 08:40:09	~6 min	`android`	📦`aar`

✔️	`694e4a2`	#21	2024-04-15 08:57:09	~4 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`694e4a2`	#21	2024-04-15 08:57:39	~4 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`694e4a2`	#21	2024-04-15 08:57:50	~4 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`694e4a2`	#23	2024-04-15 09:41:10	~47 min	`tests`	📄`log`

❔	Commit	#️⃣	Finished (UTC)	Duration	Platform	Result
✔️	`ca414a1`	#22	2024-04-30 07:08:37	~3 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`ca414a1`	#22	2024-04-30 07:09:58	~5 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`ca414a1`	#22	2024-04-30 07:10:35	~5 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`ca414a1`	#24	2024-04-30 07:47:39	~42 min	`tests`	📄`log`

✔️	`afbb823`	#23	2024-05-01 00:44:07	~2 min	`linux`	📦`zip`
✔️	`afbb823`	#23	2024-05-01 00:44:22	~2 min	`android`	📦`aar`
✔️	`afbb823`	#23	2024-05-01 00:45:31	~3 min	`ios`	📦`zip`
✔️	`afbb823`	#25	2024-05-01 01:24:21	~42 min	`tests`	📄`log`

protocol/messenger_communities.go

qfrank · 2024-04-06T02:23:54Z

thanks to @osmaczko , leave chat history with @osmaczko here as reference later cc @cammellos :

Hi Patryk, maybe you know something about this:

I'm struggling with SendMessageToControlNode , it will use SendCommunityMessage or SendPrivate depend on !community.PublicKey().Equal(community.ControlNode()) , we have 4 message types:

ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_REQUEST_TO_JOIN
ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_EDIT_SHARED_ADDRESSES
ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_CANCEL_REQUEST_TO_JOIN
ApplicationMetadataMessage_COMMUNITY_REQUEST_TO_LEAVE

which use SendMessageToControlNode , if the user is ControlNode, are we allowing ControlNode to send these 4 type of messages? should not allow IMO, so we can just use SendPrivate directly rather than SendMessageToControlNode, because the user use SendPrivate is not ControlNode ?

Relate PR: #4969

Relate code/comment:

status-go/protocol/messenger_communities.go

Line 1167 in 74ee7ef

_, err := m.sender.SendPrivate(context.Background(), member, &rawMessage)

status-go/protocol/messenger_communities.go

Line 1173 in 74ee7ef

    
           //TODO(frank): need support resending following message? if yes then we need to ensure SendMessageToControlNode

status-go/protocol/messenger_communities.go

Line 1190 in 74ee7ef

    
           //TODO(frank): need support resending following message? if yes then we need to ensure SendMessageToControlNode

status-go/protocol/messenger_communities.go

Line 1344 in 74ee7ef

    
           //TODO(frank): need support resending following message? if yes then we need to ensure SendMessageToControlNode

status-go/protocol/messenger_communities.go

Line 1510 in 74ee7ef

    
           //TODO(frank): need support resending following message? if yes then we need to ensure SendMessageToControlNode

Hey Frank,

if the user is ControlNode, are we allowing ControlNode to send these 4 type of messages?
I don't think ControlNode should ever send these types of messages, as they are to be triggered by users. I don't think there is an explicit disallowance in status-go, but there is no way in the client to send a request to join if one is a control node already.

so we can just use SendPrivate directly rather than SendMessageToControlNode
For communities without owner token minted, all messages should be sent to community pubkey rather than to certain user. That's why we have SendMessageToControlNode helper, it determines, whether to send to the user (onwer) directly or to community id.

About the related comment: "TODO(frank): need support resending following message? if yes then we need to ensure SendMessageToControlNode will invoke SendPrivate internally"

If there are privileged members in the community, this should always be true: if !community.PublicKey().Equal(community.ControlNode()) {. That's because only holder of owner-token can nominate privileged members.

Btw. Why do we need to ensure SendMessageToControlNode will invoke SendPrivate?

Hi Patryk , thank you for your explaination!

Why do we need to ensure SendMessageToControlNode will invoke SendPrivate?

Because when i was trying to implement the resending logical, considering what the ResendMethod of a RawMessage is the key, we already have SendPrivate and SendCommunityMessage and i want to reuse these 2 functions, if SendMessageToControlNode is equal to SendPrivate , implementation would be much simpler.

Let's take following code as an example to discuss,

status-go/protocol/messenger_communities.go

Line 1167 in 74ee7ef

_, err := m.sender.SendPrivate(context.Background(), member, &rawMessage)

we can see that it used SendPrivate to send the raw message, and it reused the same variable rawMessage as param which means they will have the same value on rawMessage.ID, we have a field named Recipients for RawMessage which is used to determine who is the receiver(could be multi) of the raw message. If the same raw message always use SendPrivate to send, it's okay, but.. now think about this, we have a raw message that ID is 0x1, it could be sent with SendPrivate and SendCommunityMessage at the same time because SendMessageToControlNode could use SendPrivate or SendCommunityMessage! What are we going to do with such case?

we have a raw message that ID is 0x1, it could be sent with SendPrivate and SendCommunityMessage at the same time because SendMessageToControlNode could use SendPrivate or SendCommunityMessage! What are we going to do with such case?

What I tried to say last time, is that, it should not happen with the current flow. If SendMessageToControlNode uses SendCommunityMessage then privilegedMembers should be empty. In other words, if we use SendCommunityMessage, then sendPrivate is not used. If it is, then this is a bug most likely.

Let me explain more in deep:
Community is simply a keypair. When we create it, all messages to Community are sent through SendCommunityMessage, where recipient is Community pubkey. At that point, the sendPrivate should not be used. This is for historical reasons, because before, we couldn't deterministically obtain the owner pubkey of the community, so all users sent requests to join to Community pubkey, rather than to certain member. Also the transfer of ownership was different, we was able to re-import community by using another account.

Right now, with owner-token concept, the owner of the community is the one who holds the token and we have a mechanism to deterministically obtain the chat key of that owner. Also, the private key of the community is gone once the owner-token is minted. That's why we sendPrivate directly to owners in such communities.

Since we dropped import by private key, we could, in theory, use sendPrivate in communities without owner-token minted and send messages to the user rather than Community pubkey. Although, I wouldn't go that direction, because it will most likely break a lot of things on the way.

qfrank · 2024-04-07T00:12:03Z

You may noticed messenger_raw_message_resend_test.go is placed in package api, this looks like a mess, however, if i moved it into package protocol, it would trigger import cycle issue (it's about the usage of backend and messenger). I prefer fix such mess in a separate PR, WDYT?

vitvly

Beast of a PR! Left some questions. And thanks a lot for very nice inline documentation.

protocol/migrations/sqlite/1712447150_update_raw_messages_with_resend_features.up.sql

protocol/messenger_raw_message_resend.go

protocol/common/raw_message.go

qfrank · 2024-04-09T06:37:03Z

When run TestMessengerRawMessageResendTestSuite/TestMessageSent locally for 100 times, there is a possible to get following error:

        	Error:      	Received unexpected error:
        	            	MessengerResponse data not received
        	Test:       	TestMessengerRawMessageResendTestSuite/TestMessageSent

relate test code:

	waitOnMessengerResponse(&s.Suite, func(r *protocol.MessengerResponse) error {
		for _, m := range r.Messages() {
			if m.GetContentType() == protobuf.ChatMessage_CONTACT_REQUEST {
				contactRequest = m
				return nil
			}
		}
		return errors.New("contact request not received")
	}, s.bobMessenger)

After checking code and geth.log , I found the relate error:

ERROR[04-09|13:38:50.563|github.com/status-im/status-go/wakuv2/waku.go:1003]                                could not send message                   envelopeHash=0x2fad60891798d51c94298ae6cdc9ca1d54be4d8d6c52c5739c08bf77388bbeed pubsubTopic=/waku/2/rs/16/32 contentTopic=/waku/1/0xaeffe08b/rfc26 timestamp=1,712,641,130,562,699,000 error="not enough peers to publish"

If you know something on this, do tell me, thank you! @vitvly cc @cammellos

qfrank · 2024-04-09T12:22:28Z

When run TestMessengerRawMessageResendTestSuite/TestMessageSent locally for 100 times, there is a possible to get following error:

        	Error:      	Received unexpected error:
        	            	MessengerResponse data not received
        	Test:       	TestMessengerRawMessageResendTestSuite/TestMessageSent

relate test code:

	waitOnMessengerResponse(&s.Suite, func(r *protocol.MessengerResponse) error {
		for _, m := range r.Messages() {
			if m.GetContentType() == protobuf.ChatMessage_CONTACT_REQUEST {
				contactRequest = m
				return nil
			}
		}
		return errors.New("contact request not received")
	}, s.bobMessenger)

After checking code and geth.log , I found the relate error:

ERROR[04-09|13:38:50.563|github.com/status-im/status-go/wakuv2/waku.go:1003]                                could not send message                   envelopeHash=0x2fad60891798d51c94298ae6cdc9ca1d54be4d8d6c52c5739c08bf77388bbeed pubsubTopic=/waku/2/rs/16/32 contentTopic=/waku/1/0xaeffe08b/rfc26 timestamp=1,712,641,130,562,699,000 error="not enough peers to publish"

If you know something on this, do tell me, thank you! @vitvly cc @cammellos

Solved by custom DiscV5BootstrapNode, if you have better solution, welcome! cc @richard-ramos

richard-ramos

I think this is the best solution. As we discussed, having your own custom network (like you do here) removes the dependency on the fleet reducing the flakiness of this test.
Good work!

qfrank · 2024-04-10T02:54:32Z

Unfortunately, the error still can be reproduced, but the frequency seems lower than before(6/100). @richard-ramos

    messenger_raw_message_resend_test.go:292: response error: contact request not received
    messenger_raw_message_resend_test.go:298: 
        	Error Trace:	/Users/frank/development/go/src/github.com/status-im/status-go/api/messenger_raw_message_resend_test.go:298
        	            				/Users/frank/development/go/src/github.com/status-im/status-go/api/messenger_raw_message_resend_test.go:260
        	            				/Users/frank/development/go/src/github.com/status-im/status-go/api/messenger_raw_message_resend_test.go:61
        	            				/Users/frank/development/go/src/github.com/status-im/status-go/vendor/github.com/stretchr/testify/suite/suite.go:187
        	Error:      	Received unexpected error:
        	            	MessengerResponse data not received
        	Test:       	TestMessengerRawMessageResendTestSuite/TestMessageSent

richard-ramos · 2024-04-10T07:12:51Z

I have run this a couple of times succesfully:

go test -run TestMessengerRawMessageResendTestSuite/TestMessageSent github.com/status-im/status-go/api -count 100 -v -timeout 10000s

please share the logs for when there's a failure. I'm thinking that adding a 2s sleep in the test after initializing the nodes should help, since WakuRelay takes some time to form a mesh

qfrank · 2024-04-10T08:17:38Z

I have run this a couple of times succesfully:
go test -run TestMessengerRawMessageResendTestSuite/TestMessageSent github.com/status-im/status-go/api -count 100 -v -timeout 10000s
please share the logs for when there's a failure. I'm thinking that adding a 2s sleep in the test after initializing the nodes should help, since WakuRelay takes some time to form a mesh

emm.. this time got less, only 2/100.

geth.log.zip
@richard-ramos

qfrank · 2024-04-12T04:15:20Z

more specific and smaller range logs:
cut_console.log
cut_geth.log
@richard-ramos

qfrank · 2024-04-30T15:20:10Z

FYI, append these lines into createAliceBobBackendAndLogin fixed issue:

        aliceWaku := s.aliceBackend.StatusNode().WakuV2Service()
	bobWaku := s.bobBackend.StatusNode().WakuV2Service()
	// NOTE: default MaxInterval is 10s, which is too short for the test
	err = tt.RetryWithBackOff(func() error {
		if len(aliceWaku.Peerstore().Addrs(bobWaku.PeerID())) > 0 {
			return nil
		}
		s.T().Logf("alice don't know bob's addresses")
		return errors.New("alice don't know bob's addresses")
	}, func(b *backoff.ExponentialBackOff){b.MaxInterval = 20 * time.Second})
	s.Require().NoError(err)
	err = tt.RetryWithBackOff(func() error {
		if len(bobWaku.Peerstore().Addrs(aliceWaku.PeerID())) > 0 {
			return nil
		}
		s.T().Logf("bob don't know alice's addresses")
		return errors.New("bob don't know alice's addresses")
	}, func(b *backoff.ExponentialBackOff){b.MaxInterval = 20 * time.Second})
	s.Require().NoError(err)
	s.Require().NoError(aliceWaku.DialPeerByID(bobWaku.PeerID().String()))
	s.Require().NoError(bobWaku.DialPeerByID(aliceWaku.PeerID().String()))

cc @richard-ramos @cammellos @vitvly @chaitanyaprem cheers!

kaichaosun · 2024-05-10T09:26:24Z

api/geth_backend.go

-func (b *GethStatusBackend) CreateAccountAndLogin(request *requests.CreateAccount) (*multiaccounts.Account, error) {
+// CreateAccountAndLogin creates a new account and logs in with it.
+// NOTE: requests.CreateAccount is used for public, params.Option maybe used for internal usage.
+func (b *GethStatusBackend) CreateAccountAndLogin(request *requests.CreateAccount, opts ...params.Option) (*multiaccounts.Account, error) {


Is this changes expected here? I remember I added opts and later removed it.
Then this PR reintroduce it, and I don't see anywhere is using it. @qfrank

Hi @kaichaosun , it's been used here

qfrank self-assigned this Mar 22, 2024

qfrank requested review from cammellos, vitvly and Samyoul March 22, 2024 11:01

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch 5 times, most recently from 2fbae93 to c884f3c Compare March 31, 2024 02:57

qfrank marked this pull request as ready for review April 1, 2024 01:42

qfrank requested a review from osmaczko April 1, 2024 01:42

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch 4 times, most recently from d234dd0 to f43babd Compare April 1, 2024 08:22

osmaczko reviewed Apr 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

protocol/messenger_communities.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch from b17aa49 to 17ea9ed Compare April 6, 2024 02:23

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch 2 times, most recently from 3865002 to d487673 Compare April 6, 2024 23:46

vitvly requested changes Apr 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch from d487673 to 3672759 Compare April 8, 2024 12:58

qfrank requested a review from richard-ramos April 9, 2024 07:45

vitvly self-requested a review April 9, 2024 10:23

vitvly approved these changes Apr 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

richard-ramos approved these changes Apr 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch from a238ba3 to 03a1800 Compare April 10, 2024 01:55

qfrank mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2024

Flaky test - TestCreateAccountAndLogin #4527

Closed

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch from 03a1800 to a3071bd Compare April 10, 2024 02:18

qfrank mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2024

feat: retry send raw messages status-im/status-mobile#19580

Merged

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch 2 times, most recently from fa3a38a to 694e4a2 Compare April 15, 2024 08:52

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch from 694e4a2 to ca414a1 Compare April 30, 2024 07:04

richard-ramos mentioned this pull request Apr 30, 2024

request: wakunode Start() should make sure that the node is really started. waku-org/go-waku#1095

Closed

qfrank added 2 commits May 1, 2024 08:40

feat_: retry sending specific messages

09a62b8

fix_: not enough peers to publish

afbb823

qfrank force-pushed the feat/retry_send_message branch from ca414a1 to afbb823 Compare May 1, 2024 00:41

qfrank merged commit 22bea87 into develop May 1, 2024
7 checks passed

qfrank deleted the feat/retry_send_message branch May 1, 2024 21:40

kaichaosun reviewed May 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

retry sending specific messages #4969

retry sending specific messages #4969

qfrank commented Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

status-im-auto commented Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 6, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 7, 2024 •

edited

vitvly left a comment

qfrank commented Apr 9, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 9, 2024

richard-ramos left a comment

qfrank commented Apr 10, 2024

richard-ramos commented Apr 10, 2024

qfrank commented Apr 10, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 12, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 30, 2024 •

edited

kaichaosun May 10, 2024

qfrank May 10, 2024

retry sending specific messages #4969

retry sending specific messages #4969

Conversation

qfrank commented Mar 22, 2024 • edited

status-im-auto commented Mar 22, 2024 • edited

Jenkins Builds

qfrank commented Apr 6, 2024 • edited

qfrank commented Apr 7, 2024 • edited

vitvly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

qfrank commented Apr 9, 2024 • edited

qfrank commented Apr 9, 2024

richard-ramos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

qfrank commented Apr 10, 2024

richard-ramos commented Apr 10, 2024

qfrank commented Apr 10, 2024 • edited

qfrank commented Apr 12, 2024 • edited

qfrank commented Apr 30, 2024 • edited

kaichaosun May 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

qfrank May 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

qfrank commented Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

status-im-auto commented Mar 22, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 6, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 7, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 9, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 10, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 12, 2024 •

edited

qfrank commented Apr 30, 2024 •

edited