Return all claims for a search term and not only from winning claim. #36

New issue

Closed

opened 2017-10-12 17:16:59 +02:00 by hackrush01 · 5 comments

hackrush01 commented

2017-10-12 17:16:59 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

If I search for one it should show all the claims not only the winning claim. That's how content which is not winning could be discovered. I remember bringing it up earlier, but I forgot what was the verdict on it.

Additional input from @tzarebczan and @kauffj..?

Might be related to #32.

If I search for `one` it should show all the claims not only the winning claim. That's how content which is not winning could be discovered. I remember bringing it up earlier, but I forgot what was the verdict on it. Additional input from @tzarebczan and @kauffj..? Might be related to #32.

kauffj commented

2017-10-12 18:31:59 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This is correct. All standing and valid claims should be searched. Being
the winning claim can be a weight.

On Oct 12, 2017 11:17 AM, "hackrush" notifications@github.com wrote:

If I search for one it should show all the claims not only the winning
claim. That's how content which is not winning could be discovered. I
remember bringing it up earlier, but I forgot what was the verdict on it.

Additional input from @tzarebczan https://github.com/tzarebczan and
@kauffj https://github.com/kauffj..?

Might be related to #32 https://github.com/lbryio/lighthouse/issues/32.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/lbryio/lighthouse/issues/36, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAgZVvyAksNQy8WvJqxiFHPxDa4Gf28Cks5sri1rgaJpZM4P3LHw
.

This is correct. All standing and valid claims should be searched. Being the winning claim can be a weight. On Oct 12, 2017 11:17 AM, "hackrush" <notifications@github.com> wrote: > If I search for one it should show all the claims not only the winning > claim. That's how content which is not winning could be discovered. I > remember bringing it up earlier, but I forgot what was the verdict on it. > > Additional input from @tzarebczan <https://github.com/tzarebczan> and > @kauffj <https://github.com/kauffj>..? > > Might be related to #32 <https://github.com/lbryio/lighthouse/issues/32>. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/lbryio/lighthouse/issues/36>, or mute the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAgZVvyAksNQy8WvJqxiFHPxDa4Gf28Cks5sri1rgaJpZM4P3LHw> > . >

filipnyquist commented

2017-10-12 19:20:40 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I think we pull everything from the claimtrie(just resolvable and standing claims) as of now, as doing it the other way contained a lot of problems (remember the old internal meeting where jack talked about some problems just updating on newblock), this needs some thinking.

filipnyquist commented

2017-10-12 19:44:57 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Talked with jack and tom on slack and we should be able to get the claimtrie and then use getclaimsforname for all claims in claimtrie, this would give us all claims resolvable. We would still need to build channel states on top of that info.
I will take a look at this tomorrow.

filipnyquist commented

2017-11-20 10:29:48 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This will be fixed in the upcoming release of the big update to lighthouse which will index the whole chain and resolve this error.

tiger5226 commented

2018-03-17 15:32:08 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This is already corrected with the search updates to lighthouse. It will now show results for all claims not just controlling claims. In a future update with ChainQuery we will be able to also search expired claims too.