Skip to content
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

fix: use a separate lookup map for reserving txs #1272

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 22, 2024
Merged

Conversation

cmwaters
Copy link
Contributor

This is an alternative to #1267 that solves the current problem with reserving transactions by using a separate lookup map as suggested by @rootulp.

rootulp
rootulp previously approved these changes Mar 20, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@rootulp rootulp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

evan-forbes
evan-forbes previously approved these changes Mar 20, 2024
Copy link
Member

@evan-forbes evan-forbes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perhaps a bit excessive, but we could also add an explicit test against reading

func TestReadReserved(t *testing.T) {
	store := newStore()
	tx := types.Tx("tx1")
	store.reserve(tx.Key())

	assert.Nil(t, store.get(tx.Key()))
	assert.False(t, store.has(tx.Key()))
	assert.Len(t, store.getAllKeys(), 0)
	assert.Len(t, store.getAllTxs(), 0)
}

@cmwaters cmwaters dismissed stale reviews from evan-forbes and rootulp via f58fb91 March 21, 2024 10:47
@cmwaters cmwaters requested review from rootulp and evan-forbes March 21, 2024 13:59
@cmwaters cmwaters merged commit 23604b6 into main Mar 22, 2024
18 checks passed
@cmwaters cmwaters deleted the cal/fix-reserved-txs branch March 22, 2024 09:29
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 22, 2024
cmwaters added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 25, 2024
)

This is an alternative to #1267 that solves the current problem with
reserving transactions by using a separate lookup map as suggested by
@rootulp.<hr>This is an automatic backport of pull request #1272 done by
[Mergify](https://mergify.com).

Co-authored-by: Callum Waters <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants