refactor: rename fields that correspond to the previous chunk #9500
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
pugachAG
force-pushed
the
chunk-renaming
branch
from
41da63b to
997c00c
Compare
pugachAG
requested review from
jakmeier and
robin-near
and removed request for
jakmeier
pugachAG
force-pushed
the
chunk-renaming
branch
from
2fec3c9 to
38b61d9
Compare
pugachAG
changed the title
robin-near
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2023
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
nikurt
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2023
nikurt
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 26, 2023
nikurt
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2023
nikurt
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 11, 2023
jancionear
added a commit
to jancionear/nearcore
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 29, 2024
The `receipts` field in `PartialEncodedChunk` represents the outgoing receipts of the previous chunk. Let's modify the name to make it more descriptive: `prev_outgoing_receipts` is much clearer than just `receipts`. The same name is already used in `ShardChunk`, so it'll make the code more consistent and readable. The change shouldn't break anything, the reasoning is the same as in near#9500: > This change is safe since field names are not used for serialisation because those structs only support Borsh serialization.
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 30, 2024
The `receipts` field in `PartialEncodedChunk` represents the outgoing receipts of the previous chunk. Let's modify the name to make it more descriptive: `prev_outgoing_receipts` is much clearer than just `receipts`. The same name is already used in `ShardChunk`, so it'll make the code more consistent and readable. The change shouldn't break anything, the reasoning is the same as in #9500: > This change is safe since field names are not used for serialisation because those structs only support Borsh serialization. This PR doesn't make any changes to the logic, it just renames `receipts` to `prev_outgoing_receipts`.
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.
This PR adds
prev_prefix for chunk, chunk header and block header fields that represent values from the previous chunks. This change is important in the context of switching to Post-State-Root. There we will have most of the fields represent values of the current chunk, so having explicitprev_prefix should emphasise that those fields contain values from the previous chunk.This change is safe since field names are not used for serialisation because those structs only support Borsh serialization.
Part of #9450.