-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 696
Add StateMachineUpdateContent::V1 which inculdes a vector of replay_transactions #6048
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
Add StateMachineUpdateContent::V1 which inculdes a vector of replay_transactions #6048
Conversation
…ransactions Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <[email protected]>
… into feat/signer-sends-replay-set-in-update
… into feat/signer-sends-replay-set-in-update
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.
LGTM
… into feat/signer-sends-replay-set-in-update
Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <[email protected]>
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.
This LGTM, but I think this should have some more test coverage:
- The state_machine_update parsing in the integration test should be explicit about which version it expects.
- If possible, it'd be good to test the protocol version switch over. i.e., pin the protocol version at "0" for 3 out of 5 signers, then assert that all the signers use V0 when submitting state machine updates. Then unpin 2 of the signers so that they're at version "1", and assert that 4 of the signers switch to using V1.
…r state machine update version number Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <[email protected]>
…grading signer protocol versions Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <[email protected]>
… into feat/signer-sends-replay-set-in-update
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.
LGTM, just a couple superficial comments
…p2pkh Signed-off-by: Jacinta Ferrant <[email protected]>
4a7b908
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (53.94%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #6048 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 36.40% 53.94% +17.53%
============================================
Files 5 538 +533
Lines 1269 387714 +386445
Branches 323 323
============================================
+ Hits 462 209149 +208687
- Misses 799 178557 +177758
Partials 8 8
... and 526 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Pulled the state machine version upgrade to a sep PR for replay transactions.