It is our goal to have everything documented, of course.
But we cannot force anybody to do anything. We are also not a project
that has the luxury of rejecting contributions left and right for
reasons such as "not documented".
That being said I do share your sentiment. Everything that is created
should be sufficiently documented. And that is especially true for
tooling such as the testbed. Note that documentation is missing or is
incomplete on various levels:
- Protocol specification
- C API/Developer Documentation
- Usage/User guide
I think we do not even have an open issue for the missing documentation.
But even if we had right now, it would be so low on the list of things
that must happen, it would probably not be tackled in the short term.
So, unless the "creators" of the testbed document what they did and how
they think it should be used in the handbook, somebody else would have
to reverse engineer how it works and document it. Which will obviously
take longer.
It is what it is right now, and to quote a sentence from our release
announcements:
"As a result, [gnunet] is still *only suitable for early adopters with
some reasonable pain tolerance*."
-msc
Am 15.12.24 um 20:53 schrieb gogo gogo:
I also suggest to add guideline to force dev to test and to make doc
on ANYTHING they create.
What do you all think of this idea please?
Le dim. 15 déc. 2024, 10:58, gogo gogo <gogo246...@gmail.com> a écrit :
I definitely would like to use and maybe contribute to freenet
Le dim. 15 déc. 2024, 10:54, gogo gogo <gogo246...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
Could you either document the second method or can you give me
the instruction to do it manually please?
Le dim. 15 déc. 2024, 10:43, Martin Schanzenbach
<mschanzenb...@posteo.de> a écrit :
There are two ways of doing this in gnunet.
The first is to do it manually, by starting two peers with
different configurations and having them connect.
But the proper way to do testing would be to use the (new)
testing API.
Alas, there is no usable documentation for either right now.
BR
Martin
On Sat, 2024-12-14 at 18:12 +0100, Maxime Devos wrote:
If you wish to start multiple peers on one machine, you
probably need to adjust the configuration more.
* If things are still the same as when I last worked
with this (and IIRC), some things are _/outside/_
GNUNET_HOME. There are some sockets … somewhere (I
think under /tmp? Not sure where.). So, GNUnet might
be getting confused from this.
* Maybe wait a few seconds after doing ‘gnunet-arm […]
-s’, instead of the &&. Maybe the TCP or UDP
transports haven’t choosen a port yet? I’m not sure
this is how it works though – not familiar with this,
this is speculation.
* I’m not sure if UDP ports are choosen automatically.
If they aren’t, then there might be some kind of port
conflic. In case of UDP (unidirectional), then the
peers would be unable to verify each others existence.
* Even if they are choosen automatically, this
automation probably had NAT-punching in mind, not this.
* For an isolated network, I think you also need to
tell GNUnet to bind to ‘localhost’ instead of everything.
It would be nice to have official documentation on
setting up this kind isolated one-machine, multiple peers
network. It seems quite convenient for safely testing
things out. (Though for full isolation, a ‘unix’
transport would be needed.)
Best regards,
Maxime Devos
