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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Implement limits on the size of transactions in ChunkStateWitness #11406
Implement limits on the size of transactions in ChunkStateWitness #11406
Changes from all commits
45afc64
c3a6a00
380fe64
0668768
8792bfd
dfa5f3f
b433e0e
88f22c4
9f7bc03
2dd7ec3
fe56c83
2d2f883
579515f
7574a58
f55bd33
d6750d0
52f5058
cead630
ff39b86
b6de3c0
c5579f9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
mini nit: There is a new alternative for this, I don't remember the exact syntax but it's something like this: ProtocolFeature::WitnessTransactionLimits.enabled(protocol_version). Up to you as the convention is what you've used.
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.
mini nit: Maybe hide it inside of TransactionGroup::pop and just use the tx_peek (renamed to tx)?
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.
You used an if - else here. Should if be a minimum of the two if the new feature is enabled?
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.
Please forgive me. Now that you changed it to be the chunk from the prev block I would go back to naming it prev_chunk_header. Sorry :)
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.
Eh the PR has been already merged, so I'm gonna leave it as is. If some names bother you, you can make a PR to change them ;)
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.
ditto prev_chunk
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.
mini nit: Consider putting that in a helper method.