-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 925
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
feat(header/p2p): add functional params for header/p2p package #1398
feat(header/p2p): add functional params for header/p2p package #1398
Conversation
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.
beautiful
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.
LGTM, modulo one nit
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1398 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 56.20% 56.14% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 187 188 +1
Lines 11390 11504 +114
==========================================
+ Hits 6402 6459 +57
- Misses 4365 4410 +45
- Partials 623 635 +12
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
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.
Why does Params
field on structs (both server and exchange) need to be exported?
to be able to test params properly, otherwise we will not have an access to this struct. |
@vgonkivs, needs rebase |
d3e95d3
to
c4b199f
Compare
Moving to draft in favour of #1305 as it has higher priority. |
e200fa7
to
b423c41
Compare
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.
article police
cool to see more generics
Co-authored-by: Ryan <ryan@celestia.org>
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.
Nice approach! The only problem I see with it, is that it entangles the Server and Client, and if we consider splitting them out into diff pkgs, that may require some refactoring. As long we don't do it and don't even have plans for this, we can use generics here.
Requesting changes with the suggestion to improve generic usage
@vgonkivs, re PR name, we don't usually use |
ok |
Related to #709