feat(kad): enable putting Record without publisher

[skaunov]

Description

The change is about allowing putting Record with publisher: None sacrificing republishing.

Sorry for so many lateral changes: I had to delve deeper to understand that the change would actually work and during active reading was eliminating redundant pieces which confuse comprehension with misleading supposition (looking for further use of a variable when it is actually just a parameter/argument was most common impediment).

Notes & open questions

I don't have a fine test for this in mind as it doesn't really do anything (because replication context doesn't yield an event). Simultaneously I'm not really satisfied with the approach I took to adapt/fix the test (retaining only Record with publisher: Some); but I need a hint if that's possible to do better due to the same fact of how silent replication is.

Change checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• A changelog entry has been made in the appropriate crates

[elenaf9]

Thanks for the PR!

I appreciate the general clean-up of the code, but it does make it hard to review. Given that I currently have limited time for reviews in general, I'd prefer it you could revert unrelated changes unless you feel strongly about them.

[elenaf9]

I would prefer if we don't break the API and instead add a new method Record::new_anonymous or similar. And then just set a dummy Id here or sth like that, since the actual ID is replaced in Behavior::put_record anyway.

[skaunov]

I see what you want. I'd say ("for the record", the pun unintended) I really disagree with the direction, but I don't think my (obvious?) reasons are interesting to anybody now; and it's kinda problems of those who will disentangle the logic the days after. So I can go with it to get anonymous Record upstream. 👿

On the second thought: if instead of a dummy, separate the (new) logic of put_record between new and new_anonymous the change will be not degrading and even more minimal (add new_anonymous and remove the line from put_record).

[elenaf9]

Please revert this change and the one below. We should avoid breaking the API unless it is necessary.

[skaunov]

On Thu, Oct 9 2025 at 11:59:49 AM -0700, Elena Frank ***@***.***> wrote: I appreciate the general clean-up of the code, but it does make it hard to review. Given that I currently have limited time for reviews in general, I'd prefer it you could revert unrelated changes unless you feel strongly about them.

That's understandable! No strong feeling for those changes: just that clean-up. Let me minimize the impact; I guess I'll do it tomorrow, and will close this one in spite of that minimized -- just in case someone will start to help you with the reviews and the fresh enthusiasm could reach this far. X)