This migrates everything except the `go-car` librairy: https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/issues/218#issuecomment-1529922103
I didn't migrated everything in the previous release because all the boxo code wasn't compatible with the go-ipld-prime one due to a an in flight (/ aftermath) revert of github.com/ipfs/go-block-format. go-block-format has been unmigrated since slight bellow absolutely everything depends on it that would have required everything to be moved on boxo or everything to optin into using boxo which were all deal breakers for different groups.
This worked fine because lotus's codebase could live hapely on the first multirepo setup however boost is now trying to use boxo's code with lotus's (still on multirepo) setup: https://filecoinproject.slack.com/archives/C03AQ3QAUG1/p1685022344779649
The alternative would be for boost to write shim types which just forward calls and return with the different interface definitions.
Btw why is that an issue in the first place is because unlike what go's duck typing model suggest interfaces are not transparent https://github.com/golang/go/issues/58112, interfaces are strongly typed but they have implicit narrowing. The issue is if you return an interface from an interface Go does not have a function definition to insert the implicit conversion thus instead the type checker complains you are not returning the right type.
Stubbing types were reverted https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/issues/218#issuecomment-1478650351
Last time I only migrated `go-bitswap` to `boxo/bitswap` because of the security issues and because we never had the interface return an interface problem (we had concrete wrappers where the implicit conversion took place).
- FSM handles the actual cc upgrade process including error states
- PoSting (winning and window) works over upgraded and upgrading sectors
- Integration test and changes to itest framework to reduce flakes
- Update CLI to handle new upgrade
- Update dependencies
This paves the way for better object lifetime management.
Concretely, it makes it possible to:
- have different stores backing chain and state data.
- having the same datastore library, but using different parameters.
- attach different caching layers/policies to each class of data, e.g.
sizing caches differently.
- specifying different retention policies for chain and state data.
This separation is important because:
- access patterns/frequency of chain and state data are different.
- state is derivable from chain, so one could never expunge the chain
store, and only retain state objects reachable from the last finality
in the state store.
