docs: clarify Gateway.ExposeRoutingAPI #10337
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
lidel
added
topic/docs
3 tasks
hacdias
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it makes sense to limit it in Kubo. There's no point on keeping all the records around in Kubo when there's nothing Kubo can do with them.
Someguy is then the alternative, and I think it matches well the philosophy of: Kubo shouldn't be always used for every single situation.
2color
reviewed
Feb 9, 2024
2color
reviewed
Feb 9, 2024
2color
reviewed
Feb 9, 2024
2color
approved these changes
Feb 9, 2024
Co-authored-by: Daniel Norman <[email protected]>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 way I see
/routing/v1in Kubo is that it returns only results that other Kubo (or Helia) instance would find useful.In that framing, limiting results to actionable routing results, and skipping things we know won't work, such as graphsync providers is a feature, not a bug.
If we are ok with this, and document it (this PR), we can close #10195.
I think we should document it even if we want to implement pass-through in the future.
Thoughts @aschmahmann @2color @hacdias ?