Skip to content

fix: No giant upload/add receipts#671

Merged
Peeja merged 1 commit intomainfrom
fix/no-giant-upload-add-receipts
Feb 19, 2026
Merged

fix: No giant upload/add receipts#671
Peeja merged 1 commit intomainfrom
fix/no-giant-upload-add-receipts

Conversation

@Peeja
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Peeja Peeja commented Feb 19, 2026

Don't repeat the list of shards in the upload/add OK value. It's optional, it's unnecessary, and it's problematically large for very large uploads.

Note that this change only affects the test. w3infra then needs a corresponding change to implement this correctly.

PR Dependency Tree

This tree was auto-generated by Charcoal

@Peeja Peeja requested a review from travis as a code owner February 19, 2026 17:23
@Peeja Peeja force-pushed the fix/no-giant-upload-add-receipts branch from c72fb27 to c09b09a Compare February 19, 2026 17:30
@Peeja Peeja force-pushed the fix/no-giant-upload-add-receipts branch from c09b09a to 3c641ce Compare February 19, 2026 18:05
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@frrist frrist left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am concerned this may break clients who fail to treat this value as optional on the hot network, but understand we need this to unblock forge. Could we include a check here such that we continue returning the shards when the list isn't unreasonably long, and only omit when it reaches a certain threshold?

Don't repeat the list of shards in the `upload/add` OK value. It's
optional, it's unnecessary, and it's problematically large for very
large uploads.

Note that *this* change only affects the test. `w3infra` then needs a
corresponding change to implement this correctly.
@Peeja Peeja force-pushed the fix/no-giant-upload-add-receipts branch from 3c641ce to 8eb0768 Compare February 19, 2026 20:47
@Peeja
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Peeja commented Feb 19, 2026

I don't feel super comfortable catering to potential clients that could be relying on a misunderstanding of the spec, when almost no one uses a client we didn't write. AFAICT, there's no good reason for the shards to be there in the first place, nor the root for that matter. A receipt is already tied to an invocation; unless there's a chance of the values being different, it's silly to duplicate the values. I would be surprised if anyone could come up with a reason to have used the values in the out in the first place.

@Peeja Peeja merged commit 1de69ec into main Feb 19, 2026
1 check passed
Peeja added a commit to storacha/w3infra that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants