-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
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. Weβll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: make manual mining produce non-empty blocks #459
Conversation
.next() | ||
.expect("unexpected failure, value must exist"); | ||
|
||
tracing::info!("Reverting node to snapshot '{snapshot_id:?}'"); |
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.
Throughout snapshot / mining modes we are using tracing::info!
, do we want these to be written out by default? I know we want to move away from tracing::info
all together but curious your thoughts on outputting this information.
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.
Yeah I am not adding new tracing::info
, this line existed before this PR and I think we should refactor logging in a separate PR to reduce the noise.
Generally speaking IMO we should only use tracing::trace
or tracing::debug
.
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.
lgtm
What π»
Closes #404
Why β
Correct behavior expected by users