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: correctly convert RegisteredPoStProof type #1748

Closed

Conversation

0x5459
Copy link

@0x5459 0x5459 commented Apr 23, 2023

No description provided.

@hunjixin
Copy link
Contributor

@Stebalien @raulk @anorth

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Apr 23, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #1748 (b52a9e4) into master (50b37da) will decrease coverage by 15.27%.
The diff coverage is 0.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1748       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   75.19%   59.92%   -15.27%     
===========================================
  Files         146      110       -36     
  Lines       14003     9769     -4234     
===========================================
- Hits        10529     5854     -4675     
- Misses       3474     3915      +441     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
shared/src/sector/registered_proof.rs 6.58% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 71 files with indirect coverage changes

@anorth
Copy link
Member

anorth commented Apr 23, 2023

This suffix style, especially V1P1, makes it very hard to visually spot differences here. I suggest following up here and/or in the proofs library to find something a little more distinctive.

@zhiqiangxu
Copy link
Contributor

zhiqiangxu commented Apr 24, 2023

This suffix style, especially V1P1, makes it very hard to visually spot differences here. I suggest following up here and/or in the proofs library to find something a little more distinctive.

It would be even better if the codebase can stick to the single point of reference principle, say each module doesn't redefine what's essentially the same thing, but reference to the same one, this will eliminate such issue in the future and make the code more readable.

@Stebalien
Copy link
Member

@arajasek we've merged the release branch into master. Do we still need this?

@arajasek
Copy link
Contributor

@Stebalien No, we don't, they've landed in the right branches. Thanks SO MUCH again to @0x5459 and @hunjixin for the fix.

@Stebalien Stebalien closed this Apr 27, 2023
@0x5459 0x5459 deleted the fix/0x5459/v1p1-to-v1_2 branch June 20, 2023 01:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants