-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
CHIA-1862 Fix FullNodeAPI's request_block_headers returned filter #18923
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
CHIA-1862 Fix FullNodeAPI's request_block_headers returned filter #18923
Conversation
4c3c008
to
2c8e2fc
Compare
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12032420319Details
💛 - Coveralls |
032dd93
to
9195013
Compare
your benchmark doesn't show that it's safe to remove the serialization optimization. |
9195013
to
41f24e2
Compare
# We're at the transactions_info optional. | ||
# If it's not None, consider this a transaction block. | ||
is_tx_block = buf[0] != 0 | ||
return height, is_tx_block |
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.
as far as I can tell, this function is only tested by your new test, in which case the block is a transaction block. I think it would be good to have a thorough test of this function as well. I think there is a test already you could just add this function to
looks good! It would be good to have proper test coverage of the new parsing function too |
41f24e2
to
6b2db3a
Compare
Done. Please note that while the test in question is skipped in main, enabling it and running it (with this extra coverage added to it) passes. |
Purpose:
This fixes a bug where
request_block_headers
is not accounting for removals and additions when computing the transactions filter.Current Behavior:
request_block_headers
doesn't account for removals and additions in transactions filter computation.New Behavior:
request_block_headers
takes them properly into account.