-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 307
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Extend header with amount of used data shares #262
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5b63787
feat(types): Extend header with amount of used data shares; regenerat…
Wondertan c3b15c3
fix(types): Include DataShares in Header's hash calculation; increase…
Wondertan 5dcb97b
fix(proto): change name and position to closer match the spec
Wondertan ece1655
chore(types): go fmt
Wondertan 17a3db6
fix(types): fix var misuse where wantLen was returned instead of a cu…
Wondertan File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe add in a comment here with a (permanent) link to the LL spec.
Also, while it makes sense to keep related fields closer to each other, the comment
// hashes of block data
implies that this is a hash. I'd suggest adding a newline in betweendata_hash
anddata_shares
.Also, the naming is not clear. IMO, we should aim for parity with the spec where feasible. here
availableDataOriginalSharesUsed
is used in the spec. Either use that name or something that is clearly related. IMO,num_original_data_shares
would also be clear enough (cc @adlerjohn).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree naming parity with the specs should be preferred. Order parity is required, as if affects the canonical serialization.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@liamsi, Should I then revisit all the protos to check their names and order? Not just for Header
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should eventually do this but not necessarily in this PR. Complete parity of all the protos is currently not possible yet as the data structures still differ too much from the ones in the spec anyways. Here it is sufficient to have parity with the name and maybe the position in relation to the other ones in the spec.