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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
trie: improve node typings and class architecture #3708
trie: improve node typings and class architecture #3708
Changes from 5 commits
07448f1
57a0768
ff20c60
896fe37
b24b554
8991e18
14c7004
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Hmm, I find this documentation somewhat misleading. The
key
in this context would be the pointer to whatever hash thisExtensionNode
points to. I think this is implied to by "key" but this might be confused with the MPT-keys (so the ones you use asget
argument). Not sure what a better term here would be though.referencedHash
? Or maybepointerHash
?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.
I've copied what is in the ethereum.org documentation. I agree that it is not immediately obvious what this represents. I will remove these two comments and instead add a link to the docs.
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.
I dunno if I like the updated comment any better. The docs do explain what the extension node is, in that the
key
is the DB key for the next node.Can we get rid of the "raw node" terminology and just have extension nodes, which are simply the encoded path to the node and then the DB key for the next lookup, and then lead nodes, which are the encoded path and then the leaf value (which is either an rlp encoded account or null, right)?
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 that's fair.
I'm not sure I get the idea behind getting rid of the "raw node" terminology. We could do a renaming, but then we would have to rework the classes since these are already called "ExensionNode" and "LeafNode". Additionally, in comments and various places (e.g. methods like
decodeRawNode
), we have been referring to "raw nodes" quite often, and I would tend not to make changes that are too intrusive.I've updated the comment, let me know if that seems clear enough