Fix peer crawler port field type inconsistency #6318
+12
−3
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Copilot
AI
changed the title
[WIP] Fix peer crawler port field type inconsistency
Fix peer crawler port field type inconsistency
Feb 3, 2026
Collaborator
|
@copilot please add tests (or modify tests if they already exist) |
Contributor
Author
Collaborator
|
@copilot tests appear to be failing, please fix |
Contributor
Author
... Fixed in commit f089cff:
|
Collaborator
|
@copilot actually, just pull out the tests - they seem to be more of a headache than they're worth for such a small change. We can test manually. |
Contributor
Author
mvadari
removed
the
DraftRunCI
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Fixes a type inconsistency in the Peer Crawler /crawl overlay response by ensuring overlay.active[].port is always emitted as a JSON integer (previously a string for outbound peers).
Changes:
- Update
/crawloverlay serialization so outbound peers’portis emitted as a number (consistent with inbound). - Replace inline
"active","in", and"out"literals withjssconstants. - Document the behavior change in
API-CHANGELOG.md.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| src/xrpld/overlay/detail/OverlayImpl.cpp | Emits outbound port as an integer and uses jss::active / jss::in / jss::out. |
| include/xrpl/protocol/jss.h | Adds jss::active, jss::in, and jss::out tokens. |
| API-CHANGELOG.md | Notes the Peer Crawler port type consistency change under 3.1.0. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
API-CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
33
to
34
| ### Bugfixes in 3.1.0 | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changelog sectioning is inconsistent: this file uses headings like "Additions in X.Y.Z" or "Additions and bugfixes in X.Y.Z" elsewhere, but "### Bugfixes in 3.1.0" appears to be the only standalone bugfix heading. Consider merging this entry into the existing 3.1.0 heading (e.g., rename to "Additions and bugfixes in 3.1.0" or include the bullet under an existing heading) to keep the document structure consistent.
API-CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Bugfixes in 3.1.0 | ||
|
|
||
| - Peer Crawler: The `port` field in `overlay.active[]` now consistently returns an integer instead of a string for outbound peers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This new changelog bullet doesn’t include a PR reference, while most other entries include a link like "(#NNNN)". Please add the relevant PR number/link for traceability.
Suggested change
| - Peer Crawler: The `port` field in `overlay.active[]` now consistently returns an integer instead of a string for outbound peers. | |
| - Peer Crawler: The `port` field in `overlay.active[]` now consistently returns an integer instead of a string for outbound peers. ([#6156](https://github.com/XRPLF/rippled/pull/6156)) |
- Change outbound peer port from string to integer in getOverlayInfo() - Add "active", "in", "out" JSS constants to jss.h - Update API-CHANGELOG.md with bugfix note Co-authored-by: mvadari <8029314+mvadari@users.noreply.github.com>
mvadari
force-pushed
the
copilot/fix-peer-crawler-port-type
branch
from
28a1796 to
42f6b94
Compare
mvadari
force-pushed
the
copilot/fix-peer-crawler-port-type
branch
from
42f6b94 to
aea548b
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #6318 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 79.9% 79.9%
=======================================
Files 840 840
Lines 65483 65483
Branches 7255 7252 -3
=======================================
+ Hits 52311 52315 +4
+ Misses 13172 13168 -4
... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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.
High Level Overview of Change
The Peer Crawler API returns
portas a string for outbound peers but as an integer for inbound peers. This fixes the inconsistency by makingportalways return as an integer.Context of Change
Bug introduced in the original peer crawler implementation (PR #1017, RIPD-866). Outbound peers used
std::to_string()on the port while inbound peers assigned the numeric value directly.Also moves inline string literals
"active","in","out"tojss.hper repo conventions.Type of Change
API Impact
Note: This affects the special peer-port API, not the standard RPC API, so API versioning does not apply.
Before / After
Before: Outbound peers return port as string
{"active": [{"type": "out", "port": "51235", ...}]}After: All peers return port as integer
{"active": [{"type": "out", "port": 51235, ...}]}Test Plan
Manual testing is recommended for this change. Call the peer crawler on a server that has both incoming and outgoing peers and verify:
portfield is returned as an integer for both inbound and outbound peerstypefield uses the expected "in"/"out" valuesOriginal prompt
💬 We'd love your input! Share your thoughts on Copilot coding agent in our 2 minute survey.