Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove duplicate response payloads from EndorseResponse #316

Closed
3 tasks done
bestbeforetoday opened this issue Nov 12, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #321
Closed
3 tasks done

Remove duplicate response payloads from EndorseResponse #316

bestbeforetoday opened this issue Nov 12, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #321
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@bestbeforetoday
Copy link
Member

bestbeforetoday commented Nov 12, 2021

As a Gateway client implementer
I want no duplication of proposal response payload information in the Gateway's EndorseResponse
So that large response payloads do not fail due to gRPC message size limits

Proposal response is copied to the top level of the EndorseResponse for easy access. It can be accessed from within the transaction envelope so, while this means more work at the client end to extract, the top-level copy should be removed.

Proposal response payloads may be duplicated by the endorsing peer in both the response payload and chaincode action payloads. The Gateway peer should remove any duplication in the transaction message before returning to the Gateway client, and the client should use the remaining location to retrieve the transaction response.

I think the correct response location is the chaincode action payload, and any other copies should be removed.

Tasks:

  • Client changes to use only chaincode action payload.
  • Gateway peer changes to remove top-level response and redundant response payload.
  • Remove top-level response from EndorseResponse protobuf.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants