| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Docs and comments outside future-work.md and review-rejections.md say what the code
does, and point nowhere else for what it doesn't: the architecture page's map, the
transports' forwarders, keys with `/`, a strict swarm's registry, trust.md's "Not yet"
(now saying what isn't protected, in a sentence), the topology bench, and the comments
of the change benchmarks, capabilities' grantor, tokens, dissemination, refusals and
topology.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Review 3, R4: whether a batch was judged followed the receiving
document's policy now (and whether the batch writes one). After the
policy was removed, or replaced by a version the node doesn't know,
changes written under it and received late went in unjudged, while
nodes that had them earlier judged them; REFUSALS gave up likewise.
Screening now remembers that the document held a policy, known or not
(Screening::policed), and judges what it receives while it does, each
change by the policy at its dependencies; REFUSALS judges then too
(not under a policy the node doesn't know, as before). Not across a
restart, which access.md says.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The breakdown judges at the heads after 400 changes. Whether a read
at given heads costs more in a document with a long history decides
what a read the rules don't keep costs a node with a big document.
For the workloads of more than 10000 changes, break it down a second
time, judging the last 1000 at the heads after the rest.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
bench_screening shows judging at about 17 µs of a change's 25: some
two and a half reads at its heads (the policy, bans, its node's member
entry, whether there is a registry, the sealed declarations), each
costing as much as working out what the heads cover. Screening judges
most of a batch at the same heads, and those reads are the same for
every change judged there.
Keep them (rules::Reads), by node and by user where they depend on
one, while the heads stay the same; screening keeps one for a batch.
What the heads hold doesn't change as the document takes changes, so
nothing goes stale but by other heads. The benchmark breakdown shows
judging so and afresh.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
bench_screening tells what screening costs in all, not where. Print,
per change judged, what decoding it, placing its operations
(inspect::Inspector) and judging it (rules::judge) cost; of judging,
what reading the policy costs, and one read for scale. Judged as
screening judges most changes: at the heads after the first ones,
whose maps flush the batch.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Review 2, N7, measured first: a node whose document has no policy (a
joiner's empty one) applies what it receives unjudged. Screening it too
would cost finding every change's paths and judging it. bench_screening
takes 1 000, 10 000 and 100 000 changes into an empty document, as one
delta brings them: unjudged, as Automerge applies them, against
screened (access::screen::apply), with no policy in them (each passes,
read at its dependencies, after its paths were found) and with the
policy their first change wrote (each judged by the rules).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
document::inspect: each change's paths read from its operations before
it is applied, the same on every node: an object's place as made, cut
at lists and text; unknown objects at the root.
Auth plan M6.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Finding the paths changes touch, from documents and from raw change
bytes, measured before M6 is built.
Auth plan M6 (measure first).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Signing and checking change signatures, per change and per actor's
latest change, measured before M5 is built (development.md).
Auth plan M5 (measure first).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
