added channel effective amount to the claim weight. #141
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
area: app c
area: app d
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: proposal
area: X-device Sync
Chainquery
consider soon
dependencies
Epic
Fix till next release
good first issue
hacktoberfest
help wanted
icebox
Invalid
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
Parked
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: LBRYCommunity/lighthouse.js#141
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "add_channel_weight"
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?
@tiger5226 mentioned we need to re-sync the data to get this populated, but he was hesitant because of previous issues with lighthouse + chainquery sync.
Yeah with so many claims now and the limits on node ( we should try to figure out how to increase this? ) I don't want it to fail and get in a restart loop. The solution here is to batch the sql query. Right now it is an http call which grabs all claims (when we do a full sync up). I would not expect that to be too many MB. We are already batching them up when inserting into elastic search. However, we never got to the root cause on dev.
I misspoke above. This does require a full sync but it is best we just recreate the production environment altogether.
@nikooo777 We just need to rebuild with this branch so all the claims get synced problem and we can test. All claims must have this field otherwise it will error for normal searches. Once we verify we can do the DSN switch.
if it works then LGTM, but please check that last comment first
@ -72,0 +68,4 @@
'field_value_factor': {
'field' : 'effective_amount',
'factor' : effectiveFactor,
'missing': 1,
are you sure this works? I'd expect it to be
(and same above)
I don't exactly know how it works in nodeJS but I bet interfaces would be suit well here to avoid this dry violation :p
NBD though, it's probably just a waste of time right now
@nikooo777 It does not work at the moment. We need to rebuild ( see previous comment ) the elastic search database to test this change. So I committed your suggestion, I agree. We need to get an environment setup with these changes. Not sure it will work with that many claims so I have have to break the query up to get say 10K claims per query first.
I found a solution where we can set a default value if it is missing.
@nikooo777 ready for a rebuild now. Use the
certificate_amount
branch.