Modify get/put current source to take in just a transaction ID #5036
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
|
Needs more work for CI to pass. Should this change be targeting the LQT feature branch? It's currently targeting main, which doesn't seem like the worst idea, but we'd have to rebase. |
|
Yeah, targetting main was intentional ; would be good occasion to rebase protocol/lqt_branch, which we want to do from time to time anyways |
|
do we need to apply this to main? it shouldn't have consensus breaking effects but it also doesn't seem like there's a need to merge it in there, vs bundling it with known breaking changes ? |
2bf0e2c to
a0edde9
Compare
|
I agree this should target the LQT branch, out of conservativism. However, post-merge, we should indeed rebase. |
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case
a0edde9 to
bb50e69
Compare
2 tasks
erwanor
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2025
|
LGTM. Let's just bundle this with the protocol breaking changes. It shouldn't be CB, but it touches storage and there's no real upside in getting it into main. |
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
Done. Latest sha1 on |
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
cronokirby
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
conorsch
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
cronokirby
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2025
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case Smoke tests should be sufficient. ## Checklist before requesting a review - [x] I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes. - [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: > This state is always initialized before being read, so there's no issue in changing the type we store under this state key ; reviewers should double check this.
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.
Right now this is only ever a transaction id, and for LQT work, we need to be able to just use a transaction ID, so it's better to reify that, and change a few uses to wrap it in a source, versus having to unwrap it, introducing a spurious failure case
Smoke tests should be sufficient.
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: