This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
Fix #10688 being misimplemented #10721
Merged
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
tomaka
added
A0-please_review
wigy-opensource-developer
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it is actually all 3 of us who wrote/reviewed #10688 failing to comprehend this. Sorry, I think I undervalued temporary variables that are optimized away by the compiler, but have an actual name that helps reading. That is over now! 😛
eskimor
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2022
3 tasks
|
bot merge |
|
Waiting for commit status. |
|
Added to v0.9.16 via paritytech/polkadot@01c5e9f |
grishasobol
pushed a commit
to gear-tech/substrate
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2022
ark0f
pushed a commit
to gear-tech/substrate
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2023
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
cc #10688
So apparently I'm failing at basic logic.
This properly implements the check:
if current_connected_light_clients >= num_light_clients_allowed { reject }