-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
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
feat: namespace-aware tx iterator #1014
Conversation
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.
Thanks for this! A few notes below.
} | ||
|
||
// returns (ns_id, payload_offset) | ||
// payload_offset is not checked, could be anything |
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.
What does "not checked" here mean?
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.
It means that this function parses whatever's in the namespace table as an offset. So if that data is corrupted then the returned offset is corrupted.
This should never happen now that the namespace table is part of the header, so consensus nodes enforce a well-formed namespace table. But I want this code / docs to be paranoid.
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 rebased main and force-pushed new commits to this branch. Need approval from @jbearer and/or @nomaxg .
We are currently pushing to close #1009 , #1011 . Some code from this PR will be used to close these subsequent issues.
Code still needs significant tidying. We already have a few issues posted about this #856 #951 #1012 that will be addressed after we close #1011 . In the meantime, I ask that you be forgiving about code cleanliness.
Flagged a couple notes for @jbearer in comments below.
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
closes #931