Codecov Report

Merging #292 (1922e89) into main (d7db1ad) will decrease coverage by 0.16%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #292      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   48.03%   47.87%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files         279      280       +1     
  Lines       33439    33521      +82     
==========================================
- Hits        16062    16048      -14     
- Misses      15697    15786      +89     
- Partials     1680     1687       +7     

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

This makes sense but I am suprised that this is being merged with 0 coverage in entries.go.

@Jorropo indeed, I was thinking of reverting this.

@laurentsenta I merged this too impulsively, reverted in #293. I only realised how coupled all the names were to Kubo's name inspect functionality once I looked more carefully at ipfs/kubo#9867. Do you mind opening this again with this change. Here's some notes:

Verify

1. Rename to ValidateWithPeerID
2. Change signature to func ValidateWithPeerID(id peer.ID, entry *ipns_pb.IpnsEntry) error
3. Remove IpnsInspectValidation. That should stay in Kubo's name inspect logic.
4. Move it above Validate
5. Add tests

IpnsInspectEntry and InspectIpnsRecord

Only include these if there's a clear benefit. I do think that they can be useful since the Protobuf type is definitely not the most user-friendly to make operations. However, it needs to make sense. The name of the types are coupled to the command ipfs name inspect. Also, the types of the different fields were also chosen according to what we needed in the command. They may not make sense for a generalisation.

UnmarshalIpnsEntry should also stay.