Adding ipfs trait

[BoisterousCoder]

Description

This pull request implement an implantation for ipfs so code can later the call the following features:

• [x] Add IPFS trait
• [x] Add http module
• [x] Add ipfs drop trait to help with easy cleanup
• [x] Add ability to do swarm connect
• [ ] ~Add ability to do swarm disconnect~ Implicit disconnect when daemon closes
• [x] Add ability to edit config
• [ ] ~Add ability to do bootstap add~ This is covered by the config command
• [x] Add ability to upload files
• [x] Add ability to upload folders

Link to issue

closes #7

Testing

There are intregration test that are located in ./ipfs/tests.rs. Just do cargo test to run them and cargo test -- --nocapture if you need to see the console log. These test should hit the entire code. Just note these tests reference the fission production ipfs nodes and a couple of the tests upload files. Also you will need to have ipfs in your PATH as the daemon is launched using the ipfs daemon command.

Type of change

• [x] New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• [x] Comments have been added/updates

[zeeshanlakhani]

Instead of the HTTP layer here, https://github.com/ferristseng/rust-ipfs-api is probably the way to go.

[BoisterousCoder]

I think its ready for review again but I don't dont think anyone is going to be able to review it until the 3rd

[BoisterousCoder]

@bgins Those sub-directories are there to test that you can upload sub-directories and what's inside of them

[bgins]

@bgins Those sub-directories are there to test that you can upload sub-directories and what's inside of them

Ah ok, I missed that. Makes sense to keep them then. 👌

[bgins]

@BoisterousCoder Thanks for making all the changes, and this is in good shape! However, personally, I'd probably remove the dead code (as we can revisit things from utils at another point) and remove the tests using this code.

Yep, this seems like the right call. It will make the code base cleaner and easier to read.

We may have use for some of the dead code in the future. If we do, we can pull it up when we need it. I'll keep this branch around for future reference.

[BoisterousCoder]

@BoisterousCoder Thanks for making all the changes, and this is in good shape! However, personally, I'd probably remove the dead code (as we can revisit things from utils at another point) and remove the tests using this code.

Okay, dead code removed