pool: chore: make reserve caching system more obvious to use #180
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
Ryang-21
previously approved these changes
Jan 4, 2024
|
lgtm |
feat: use standard initialization logic
pool: fix: update reactivity constant bounds
Ryang-21
approved these changes
Jan 4, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was some concern that it was not obvious and potentially error prone that developers could misuse the "reserves_to_store" component of the Pool reserve cache.
The fix was to make it more obvious the intention of a developer as they used it. I opted for this over an explicit "store unless defused" mechanism because we often read reserves we don't want to store as a final step (IE - checking the health factor in submit).
The fix requires the developer to state if they want to store the reserve when they load it, and the pool will validate that no reserve is missing from the cache that it expects to write back. This prevents the case where a developer forgets to store the updated reserve before calling
pool.store_cached_reserves.