Peixian Wang

Is there a blocker for this PR to get upstreamed?

@josevalim I'll change it to counters. For tests, it appears that the tests are by default already broken? I didn't add onto it because I wasn't sure what the state...

@josevalim this is good for re-review, I've got all the tests passing and added a few.

This is an old issue, but in case anyone ends up here like I have, it was an issue of the path for me. Input like ``` node2vec -i:/workspace/org-data.edgelist -o:/workspace/org-data.emb...

Closing as unnecessary and as part of open PR cleanup.

587 and 443 front different backends, with different cert requirements: https://github.com/WhatsApp/proxy/blob/main/proxy/src/proxy_config.cfg#L87

443 is intended to unblock chat, while 587 fronts media on WA. These are configurable from inside the client, as traffic is distinguishable between them and we need to have...

Because both paths are different. 443 fronts chat. 587 fronts media. Per the WhatsApp white paper (https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.8562-6/455962147_1148247109601582_1673264986279156121_n.pdf?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=e280be&_nc_ohc=jJjOSDHnf5UQ7kNvwG8VXgy&_nc_oc=Adnc-fxOGUJbX9yFtP5mVIUP5S4LgHNuKrsx3JZ_6ghQ0kbtre0niq9X74NIvQhBnIY&_nc_zt=14&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&_nc_gid=yF2uFxWBNL3xzoK9sm9fiQ&oh=00_AfXkr_-k-uZ5yDTC8mB-9Z1ZwMt5go0tPTw-CStNRX6L_w&oe=68A8F899), we use noise pipes as the transport layer security for chat, but media...

Each port serves a different path. 443 is serves noise pipes traffic wrapped in TLS. 587 serves media traffic out of WhatsApp CDNs (http, not noise). These have different cert...

Again, noise does not require TLS. HTTPS (obviously) does require it. Noise can be optionally wrapped in TLS frames, which do not required cert validation. Chat messages are delivered via...