Thank you for submitting this PR!
A maintainer will be here shortly to review it.
We are super grateful, but we are also overloaded! Help us by making sure that:

• The context for this PR is clear, with relevant discussion, decisions
  and stakeholders linked/mentioned.

• Your contribution itself is clear (code comments, self-review for the
  rest) and in its best form. Follow the code contribution
  guidelines
  if they apply.

Getting other community members to do a review would be great help too on complex PRs (you can ask in the chats/forums). If you are unsure about something, just leave us a comment.
Next steps:

• A maintainer will triage and assign priority to this PR, commenting on
  any missing things and potentially assigning a reviewer for high
  priority items.

• The PR gets reviews, discussed and approvals as needed.

• The PR is merged by maintainers when it has been approved and comments addressed.

We currently aim to provide initial feedback/triaging within two business days. Please keep an eye on any labelling actions, as these will indicate priorities and status of your contribution.
We are very grateful for your contribution!

Hey @hacdias Could you please take a look at this PR?

@lidel Could you please take a look at this PR?

@zikunfan apologies for slow reply.

Pinning service support in webui landed in very basic form, and we are lacking proper test suite.
I'll get back to this PR as soon we have a test suite that confirms endpoint is compatible with the spec.

@zikunfan apologies for slow reply.

Pinning service support in webui landed in very basic form, and we are lacking proper test suite. I'll get back to this PR as soon we have a test suite that confirms endpoint is compatible with the spec.

@lidel Any progress?

sadly no, I'm busy with ipfs/kubo#8183, will get to this when I have spare bandwidth.
if anyone wants to see this sooner, submitting a PR with prototype testing tool that aims to close ipfs/pinning-services-api-spec#64 would speed things up (I am happy to review and advise)

sadly no, I'm busy with ipfs/go-ipfs#8183, will get to this when I have spare bandwidth. if anyone wants to see this sooner, submitting a PR with prototype testing tool that aims to close ipfs/pinning-services-api-spec#64 would speed things up (I am happy to review and advise)

Yeah, I'll take a look and see how can I do for it

@badkk the pinning service compliance checker is released now, can you add Crust there so we can check compliance prior to adding it?

@badkk the pinning service compliance checker is released now, can you add Crust there so we can check compliance prior to adding it?

Oh, i'm sorry i just saw the PR mention since i was under business trip last 2 weeks!
Big sure, thanks for letting me know this! I'll take a look and complete this within next Fri!

@badkk the pinning service compliance checker is released now, can you add Crust there so we can check compliance prior to adding it?

Hey @SgtPooki ! I've already solved this issue: ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance#154, would you please take a look! If you got any question need some instance help, my tg handler is: @baaadkk!

Thanks so much @badkk, I will be looking at that PR today

PR for compliance checks: ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance#162

PR for compliance checks: ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance#162

Hey @SgtPooki, do i need to do extra job on this PR? lmk if you got further questions?

Hey @badkk, thanks for the ping. I'm concerned with adding crust to the list of default pinning providers when crust is currently failing all compliance checks. I also commented on ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance#154 (comment)

Hey @badkk, thanks for the ping. I'm concerned with adding crust to the list of default pinning providers when crust is currently failing all compliance checks. I also commented on ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance#154 (comment)

Okay, we'll take a look at it, in the meanwhile did you add crust access token for the CI? Also does the CI different from https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance/actions/runs/3115068735 ?

@badkk yes the token is added. You can see the latest scheduled run at https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance/actions/runs/3162850936 with logs and report in the artifacts listed beneath the run details

https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance/actions/runs/3162850936

Hey @SgtPooki we've updated Crust Pinning Service(https://pin.crustcode.com/) to adapt to the newest pinning service standard docs, could you please trigger the check again to see if it's okay now?

https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance/actions/runs/3162850936

Hey @SgtPooki we've updated Crust Pinning Service(https://pin.crustcode.com/) to adapt to the newest pinning service standard docs, could you please trigger the check again to see if it's okay now?

The latest run was 4 days ago now and still showing a failure on all checks: https://ipfs-shipyard.github.io/pinning-service-compliance/pin.crustcode.com.html

Is there anything we can update in the output to make debugging failures easier? If so, please open an issue at https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/pinning-service-compliance so we can help get this across the finish line!