Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.

BlockId removal: BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at #13401

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 21, 2023

Conversation

michalkucharczyk
Copy link
Contributor

@michalkucharczyk michalkucharczyk commented Feb 16, 2023

It changes the arguments of BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at from:
BlockId<Block> to: Block::Hash

This PR is part of BlockId::Number refactoring analysis (paritytech/polkadot-sdk#53)

polkadot companion: paritytech/polkadot#6734
cumulus companion: paritytech/cumulus#2219

It changes the arguments of `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at` from:
`BlockId<Block>` to: `Block::Hash`
@michalkucharczyk michalkucharczyk added B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders. D3-trivial 🧸 PR contains trivial changes in a runtime directory that do not require an audit labels Feb 16, 2023
@michalkucharczyk michalkucharczyk marked this pull request as draft February 16, 2023 17:11

let params = BlockCheckParams {
hash: block_ok.hash(),
number: 0,
number: 1,
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michalkucharczyk michalkucharczyk Feb 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

note: Actually number given here does not matter, but the code is less confusing if the number actually matches the checked block.

parent_hash: *block_ok.header().parent_hash(),
allow_missing_state: false,
allow_missing_parent: false,
import_existing: false,
};
if record_only {
fork_rules.push((1, block_ok.hash()));
fork_rules.push((2, block_ok.hash()));
Copy link
Contributor Author

@michalkucharczyk michalkucharczyk Feb 16, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

note: Checking fork at block height 2 is more readable and less confusing, this is inline with actual block number, and also with params passed to check_block.

@michalkucharczyk
Copy link
Contributor Author

bot merge

@paritytech-processbot paritytech-processbot bot merged commit 2d6e555 into master Feb 21, 2023
@paritytech-processbot paritytech-processbot bot deleted the mku-blockid-new_block_at branch February 21, 2023 18:36
ltfschoen pushed a commit to ltfschoen/substrate that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2023
…3401)

* `BlockId` removal: `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at`

It changes the arguments of `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at` from:
`BlockId<Block>` to: `Block::Hash`

* fmt

* fix

* more fixes
ark0f pushed a commit to gear-tech/substrate that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2023
…3401)

* `BlockId` removal: `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at`

It changes the arguments of `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at` from:
`BlockId<Block>` to: `Block::Hash`

* fmt

* fix

* more fixes
Ank4n pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2023
* `BlockId` removal: `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at`

It changes the arguments of `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at` from:
`BlockId<Block>` to: `Block::Hash`

* fmt

* fix

* more fixes
ukint-vs pushed a commit to gear-tech/substrate that referenced this pull request Apr 10, 2023
…3401)

* `BlockId` removal: `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at`

It changes the arguments of `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at` from:
`BlockId<Block>` to: `Block::Hash`

* fmt

* fix

* more fixes
nathanwhit pushed a commit to nathanwhit/substrate that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2023
…3401)

* `BlockId` removal: `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at`

It changes the arguments of `BlockBuilderProvider::new_block_at` from:
`BlockId<Block>` to: `Block::Hash`

* fmt

* fix

* more fixes
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes C1-low PR touches the given topic and has a low impact on builders. D3-trivial 🧸 PR contains trivial changes in a runtime directory that do not require an audit
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants