LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 29 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases 32 Packages Wiki Activity

Claim name normalization #102

Closed
lbrynaut wants to merge 245 commits from normalized-name-fork into master
pull from: normalized-name-fork
merge into: LBRYCommunity:master
Conversation 14 Commits 245 Files changed 115 +559 -210
lbrynaut commented 2018-02-28 22:33:08 +01:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Add lowercase and unicode normalization to claim name entries in the claim trie

Related to #65

Add lowercase and unicode normalization to claim name entries in the claim trie Related to #65
lyoshenka (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-03-02 15:22:41 +01:00
src/claimtrie.cpp
lyoshenka (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-03-02 15:22:40 +01:00
Copy link

it looks like all the vars here are camelCase. should normalized_name be normalizedName?

it looks like all the vars here are camelCase. should `normalized_name` be `normalizedName`?
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-03-05 14:53:31 +01:00
src/claimtrie.cpp
lbrynaut (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-03-05 14:53:30 +01:00
Copy link

Sure, they can be.

Sure, they can be.
kaykurokawa (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2018-03-19 19:18:25 +01:00
src/claimtrie.h
kaykurokawa (Migrated from github.com) commented 2018-03-19 19:18:24 +01:00
Copy link

We should make this adjustable via chainparams.cpp so that we can define different block height for testing in regtest/testnet

We should make this adjustable via chainparams.cpp so that we can define different block height for testing in regtest/testnet
tzarebczan commented 2018-03-28 15:55:50 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@lbrynaut what are the next steps here?

@lbrynaut what are the next steps here?
lbrynaut commented 2018-03-28 16:44:56 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@tzarebczan 1) The required ICU dependency build issue needs to be resolved (last I heard, not by me), 2) Unit tests need to be added, 3) Feedback needs to be applied.

I'd say it's stalled at the moment due to 1). I will resolve it eventually it if no one else does after some other work is complete. If someone else resolves it, let me know and I'll move on to 2).

@tzarebczan 1) The required ICU dependency build issue needs to be resolved (last I heard, not by me), 2) Unit tests need to be added, 3) Feedback needs to be applied. I'd say it's stalled at the moment due to 1). I will resolve it eventually it if no one else does after some other work is complete. If someone else resolves it, let me know and I'll move on to 2).
kauffj commented 2018-03-28 16:57:07 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Apologies, I brought this up with the team but was unclear in who was responsible.

@IGassmann is going to look at https://github.com/lbryio/lbrycrd/issues/111 and see if he can crack this build issue.

If not, he will escalate to Grin or Kay.

Apologies, I brought this up with the team but was unclear in who was responsible. @IGassmann is going to look at https://github.com/lbryio/lbrycrd/issues/111 and see if he can crack this build issue. If not, he will escalate to Grin or Kay.
kauffj commented 2018-03-28 16:58:17 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@lbrynaut can 2 and 3 progress without 1?

@lbrynaut can 2 and 3 progress without 1?
lbrynaut commented 2018-03-30 15:53:11 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@kauffj yes

@kauffj yes
tzarebczan commented 2018-04-02 17:48:31 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@lbrynaut - to be clear, users will still be allowed to create claims with capital letters but this will ensure that the vanity/permanent URL resolution does not take into account case sensitivity?

@lbrynaut - to be clear, users will still be allowed to create claims with capital letters but this will ensure that the vanity/permanent URL resolution does not take into account case sensitivity?
lbrynaut commented 2018-04-02 17:57:29 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

@tzarebczan Users can create whatever they want, but internally, claim names are stored/referenced in a normalized way. So you could specify Test, tEst, TEST, tesT, which would all refer to the same claim after the fork. When I have time, I'll clean this up and add some unit tests to demonstrate.

@tzarebczan Users can create whatever they want, but internally, claim names are stored/referenced in a normalized way. So you could specify Test, tEst, TEST, tesT, which would all refer to the same claim after the fork. When I have time, I'll clean this up and add some unit tests to demonstrate.
IGassmann commented 2018-04-03 16:55:00 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

I, unfortunately, wasn't able to resolve the build issue by now. Either @lyoshenka or @kaykurokawa should be able to resolve it more effectively. If any help is needed for the Travis configuration, I'm available.

I, unfortunately, wasn't able to resolve the build issue by now. Either @lyoshenka or @kaykurokawa should be able to resolve it more effectively. If any help is needed for the Travis configuration, I'm available.
lbrynaut commented 2018-04-04 20:43:43 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

Heads up -- I've been revisiting this and I think I'm going to abandon this work in favor of a new proposal. This approach has a lot of boundary conditions that are difficult to narrow down, cannot perform as well as I'd like, and may be overly complicated (in retrospect).

Heads up -- I've been revisiting this and I think I'm going to abandon this work in favor of a new proposal. This approach has a lot of boundary conditions that are difficult to narrow down, cannot perform as well as I'd like, and may be overly complicated (in retrospect).
lyoshenka commented 2018-06-13 19:36:38 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

can we close this in favor of #159 ?

can we close this in favor of #159 ?
lbrynaut commented 2018-06-13 22:33:04 +02:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy link

can we close this in favor of #159 ?

Yes.

> can we close this in favor of #159 ? Yes.

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
area: devops

   
area: discovery

   
area: docs

   
area: livestream

   
area: proposal

Work is part of a proposal

  
consider soon

Discuss this issue at the next planning meeting, then remove this label

  
Epic

   
good first issue

   
hacktoberfest

Welcome to Hacktoberfest

  
hard fork

   
help wanted

   
icebox

Long-term storage

  
Invalid

   
level: 0

   
level: 1

No knowledge of the existing code required

  
level: 2

Some knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 3

Significant knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
level: 4

Intimate knowledge of the existing code is recommended

  
needs: exploration

Solution unclear, needs research

  
needs: grooming

Issue needs to be groomed before work can start

  
needs: priority

Priority level needs to be defined

  
needs: repro

Issue needs step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce in latest code

  
needs: tech design

Needs technical design signoff before implementation can begin

  
on hold

Temporarily paused

  
priority: blocker

Issue is blocking release, do ASAP

  
priority: high

Work needs to be moved into sprint ASAP

  
priority: low

Work should be done but can stay in the backlog for now

  
priority: medium

Work needs to be done within 2-3 sprints

  
resilience

   
soft fork

   
Tom's Wishlist

   
type: bug

Existing functionality is wrong or broken

  
type: discussion

A conversation. No specific changes requested

  
type: improvement

Existing (or partially existing) functionality needs to be changed

  
type: new feature

New functionality that does not exist yet

  
type: refactor

Minimal user-visible changes, but significant internal work

  
type: task

Either work that's not related to the code, or a small chore that does not fit into other categories

  
type: testing

Solution needs additional user testing

  
unplanned

Work that was not planned into the spirnt, took priority over planned work

  
work in progress

The proposed solution is still incomplete.

No labels
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: livestream
area: proposal
consider soon
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
hard fork
help wanted
icebox
Invalid
level: 0
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
resilience
soft fork
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
work in progress
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: LBRYCommunity/lbrycrd#102
No description provided.
Delete branch "normalized-name-fork"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?