Skip to content

[raft] Remove locality and random packages and precompute ID - #1751

Merged
mickmis merged 1 commit into
interuss:masterfrom
Orbitalize:precompute_seed_locality
Oct 6, 2026
Merged

mickmis merged 1 commit into
interuss:masterfrom
Orbitalize:precompute_seed_locality

Conversation

@MariemBaccari

@MariemBaccari MariemBaccari commented Oct 6, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Following the efforts of pre-computing and validating as much as possible before proposing (e.g. #1714), this PR:

  • Removes the locality package which was unused since RID payloads now encapsulate the writer directly.
  • Removes the random package and precomputes the implicit subscription UUID.

@MariemBaccari
MariemBaccari marked this pull request as ready for review October 6, 2026 09:45

@mickmis mickmis left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - the best kind of PRs :D

@mickmis
mickmis merged commit c060340 into interuss:master Oct 6, 2026
20 checks passed
@mickmis
mickmis deleted the precompute_seed_locality branch October 6, 2026 09:50
@mickmis

mickmis commented Oct 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@MariemBaccari looks like that with this the Locality flag is not required anymore in Proposal, and that it is then not required to pass it down from Init. If that's correct could you follow-up with that cleanup?

@MariemBaccari

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mickmis It is not used anymore indeed. However, it might be useful for observability to track locality in addition to the node ID for each proposal. What do you think ?

@mickmis

mickmis commented Oct 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mickmis It is not used anymore indeed. However, it might be useful for observability to track locality in addition to the node ID for each proposal. What do you think ?

One way or another we probably want to surface the locality at some point. Now, it is more of a free-text value configured at each node rather than an authoritative information. That would be coming from the certificate. The point I want to make here is that it is unclear now this is how we want to identify participants, and it might be misleading to include that already now. So I'd rather favor removing that field from the proposal for now and add it back later if that is needed. That will be much easier than removing it later if it ends up not being required.

@MariemBaccari

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@mickmis That's a great point, I just opened #1752 to remove the locality :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants