fix: support more ipfs options #396
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
in-proc daemon didnt support all the js-ipfs options, this should be improved so we dont need to syncronize manual.
|
Do you think it might be worth putting the opts we pass to IPFS under a separate key in the opts passed to |
yes that is what i was thinking but that would be a breaking change, i wanna merge this and make a breaking version after. |
|
Can you open an issue for the breaking change so it doesn't get lost? |
achingbrain
approved these changes
Oct 14, 2019
|
done #397 |
This was referenced Oct 27, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
in-proc daemon didnt support all the js-ipfs options, this should be improved so we dont need to syncronize manually.
this is related to ipfs/interop#86 circuit tests were failing because relay: true wasnt being passed to the constructor