Fix inconsistencies related to best chain order in RFC and state impl #1267
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
blocked until #1258 merges |
yaahc
commented
Nov 6, 2020
| @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ impl NonFinalizedState { | |||
| pub fn any_chain_contains(&self, hash: &block::Hash) -> bool { | |||
| self.chain_set | |||
| .iter() | |||
| .rev() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this isn't strictly necessary but I thought it would be best for us to iterate in best chain order when searching for hashes.
teor2345
approved these changes
Nov 9, 2020
mpguerra
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2023
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2023
* ZIPs were updated to remove ambiguity, this was tracked in #1267. * #2105 was fixed by #3039 and #2379 was closed by #3069 * #2230 was a duplicate of #2231 which was closed by #2511 * #3235 was obsoleted by #2156 which was fixed by #3505 * #1850 was fixed by #2944, #1851 was fixed by #2961 and #2902 was fixed by #2969 * We migrated to Rust 2021 edition in Jan 2022 with #3332 * #1631 was closed as not needed * #338 was fixed by #3040 and #1162 was fixed by #3067 * #2079 was fixed by #2445 * #4794 was fixed by #6122 * #1678 stopped being an issue * #3151 was fixed by #3934 * #3204 was closed as not needed * #1213 was fixed by #4586 * #1774 was closed as not needed * #4633 was closed as not needed * Clarify behaviour of difficulty spacing Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net> * Update comment to reflect implemented behaviour Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net> * Update comment to reflect implemented behaviour when retrying block downloads Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net> * Update `TODO` to remove closed issue and clarify when we might want to fix Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net> * Update `TODO` to remove closed issue and clarify what we might want to change in future Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net> * Clarify benefits of how we do block verification Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net> * Fix rustfmt errors --------- Co-authored-by: teor <teor@riseup.net>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Prior to this PR we realized that the RFC had been drafted with the assumption that chains would be ordered from best to worst in
NonFinalizedState. This assumption was incorrect, sinceBTreeSetonly ever orders values in ascending order. This discrepancy was noticed and fixed in the code, but there were still some inconsistencies that needed to be cleaned up.Solution
This PR updates all the incorrect or confusing comments about chain ordering in the RFC and code.
The code in this pull request has:
Review
@teor2345
Related Issues
Follow Up Work