Write state diff to CSV #2
@ -180,6 +180,10 @@ func makeFullNode(ctx *cli.Context) *node.Node {
|
||||
if cfg.Ethstats.URL != "" {
|
||||
utils.RegisterEthStatsService(stack, cfg.Ethstats.URL)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if ctx.GlobalBool(utils.StateDiffFlag.Name) {
|
||||
utils.RegisterStateDiffService(stack, ctx)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return stack
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -134,6 +134,9 @@ var (
|
||||
utils.GpoPercentileFlag,
|
||||
utils.EWASMInterpreterFlag,
|
||||
utils.EVMInterpreterFlag,
|
||||
utils.StateDiffFlag,
|
||||
utils.StateDiffModeFlag,
|
||||
utils.StateDiffPathFlag,
|
||||
configFileFlag,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -246,6 +246,14 @@ var AppHelpFlagGroups = []flagGroup{
|
||||
utils.MinerLegacyExtraDataFlag,
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
Name: "STATE DIFF",
|
||||
Flags: []cli.Flag{
|
||||
utils.StateDiffFlag,
|
||||
utils.StateDiffModeFlag,
|
||||
utils.StateDiffPathFlag,
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
Name: "MISC",
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/params"
|
||||
whisper "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/whisper/whisperv6"
|
||||
"gopkg.in/urfave/cli.v1"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/service"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var (
|
||||
@ -634,6 +636,23 @@ var (
|
||||
Usage: "External EVM configuration (default = built-in interpreter)",
|
||||
Value: "",
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
StateDiffFlag = cli.BoolFlag{
|
||||
Name: "statediff",
|
||||
Usage: "Enables the calculation of state diffs between each block, persists these state diffs the configured persistence mode.",
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
StateDiffModeFlag = cli.StringFlag{
|
||||
Name: "statediff.mode",
|
||||
Usage: "Enables the user to determine which persistence mode they'd like to store the state diffs in.",
|
||||
Value: "csv",
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
StateDiffPathFlag = cli.StringFlag{
|
||||
Name: "statediff.path",
|
||||
Usage: "Enables the user to determine where to persist the state diffs.",
|
||||
Value: ".",
|
||||
}
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
// MakeDataDir retrieves the currently requested data directory, terminating
|
||||
@ -1351,6 +1370,34 @@ func RegisterEthStatsService(stack *node.Node, url string) {
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func RegisterStateDiffService(stack *node.Node, ctx *cli.Context) {
|
||||
//based on the context, if path and mode are set, update the config here
|
||||
//otherwise pass in an empty config
|
||||
|
||||
modeFlag := ctx.GlobalString(StateDiffModeFlag.Name)
|
||||
mode, err := statediff.NewMode(modeFlag)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
Fatalf("Failed to register State Diff Service", err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
path := ctx.GlobalString(StateDiffPathFlag.Name)
|
||||
|
||||
config := statediff.Config{
|
||||
Mode: mode,
|
||||
Path: path,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if err := stack.Register(func(ctx *node.ServiceContext) (node.Service, error) {
|
||||
var ethServ *eth.Ethereum
|
||||
ctx.Service(ðServ)
|
||||
chainDb := ethServ.ChainDb()
|
||||
blockChain := ethServ.BlockChain()
|
||||
return service.NewStateDiffService(chainDb, blockChain, config)
|
||||
}); err != nil {
|
||||
Fatalf("Failed to register State Diff Service", err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func SetupMetrics(ctx *cli.Context) {
|
||||
if metrics.Enabled {
|
||||
log.Info("Enabling metrics collection")
|
||||
|
@ -156,7 +156,12 @@ func New(ctx *node.ServiceContext, config *Config) (*Ethereum, error) {
|
||||
EWASMInterpreter: config.EWASMInterpreter,
|
||||
EVMInterpreter: config.EVMInterpreter,
|
||||
}
|
||||
cacheConfig = &core.CacheConfig{Disabled: config.NoPruning, TrieCleanLimit: config.TrieCleanCache, TrieDirtyLimit: config.TrieDirtyCache, TrieTimeLimit: config.TrieTimeout}
|
||||
cacheConfig = &core.CacheConfig{
|
||||
Disabled: config.NoPruning,
|
||||
TrieCleanLimit: config.TrieCleanCache,
|
||||
TrieDirtyLimit: config.TrieDirtyCache,
|
||||
TrieTimeLimit: config.TrieTimeout,
|
||||
}
|
||||
)
|
||||
eth.blockchain, err = core.NewBlockChain(chainDb, cacheConfig, eth.chainConfig, eth.engine, vmConfig, eth.shouldPreserve)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
|
272
statediff/builder/builder.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
|
||||
|
||||
// Copyright 2015 The go-ethereum Authors
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// This file is part of the go-ethereum library.
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
//
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// (at your option) any later version.
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
//
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
//
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// along with the go-ethereum library. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// Contains a batch of utility type declarations used by the tests. As the node
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// operates on unique types, a lot of them are needed to check various features.
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
package builder
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
import (
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common/hexutil"
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/state"
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/ethdb"
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/log"
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/rlp"
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/trie"
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
type Builder interface {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
BuildStateDiff(oldStateRoot, newStateRoot common.Hash, blockNumber int64, blockHash common.Hash) (*StateDiff, error)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
type builder struct {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
chainDB ethdb.Database
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
trieDB *trie.Database
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
cachedTrie *trie.Trie
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func NewBuilder(db ethdb.Database) *builder {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return &builder{
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
chainDB: db,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
trieDB: trie.NewDatabase(db),
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func (sdb *builder) BuildStateDiff(oldStateRoot, newStateRoot common.Hash, blockNumber int64, blockHash common.Hash) (*StateDiff, error) {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// Generate tries for old and new states
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
oldTrie, err := trie.New(oldStateRoot, sdb.trieDB)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error creating trie for oldStateRoot", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
newTrie, err := trie.New(newStateRoot, sdb.trieDB)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error creating trie for newStateRoot", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// Find created accounts
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
oldIt := oldTrie.NodeIterator([]byte{})
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
newIt := newTrie.NodeIterator([]byte{})
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
creations, err := sdb.collectDiffNodes(oldIt, newIt)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error collecting creation diff nodes", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// Find deleted accounts
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
oldIt = oldTrie.NodeIterator([]byte{})
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
newIt = newTrie.NodeIterator([]byte{})
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
deletions, err := sdb.collectDiffNodes(newIt, oldIt)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error collecting deletion diff nodes", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// Find all the diffed keys
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
createKeys := sortKeys(creations)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
deleteKeys := sortKeys(deletions)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
updatedKeys := findIntersection(createKeys, deleteKeys)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// Build and return the statediff
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
updatedAccounts, err := sdb.buildDiffIncremental(creations, deletions, updatedKeys)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error building diff for updated accounts", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
createdAccounts, err := sdb.buildDiffEventual(creations)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error building diff for created accounts", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
deletedAccounts, err := sdb.buildDiffEventual(deletions)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error building diff for deleted accounts", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return &StateDiff{
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
BlockNumber: blockNumber,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
BlockHash: blockHash,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
CreatedAccounts: createdAccounts,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
DeletedAccounts: deletedAccounts,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts: updatedAccounts,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}, nil
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func (sdb *builder) collectDiffNodes(a, b trie.NodeIterator) (map[common.Address]*state.Account, error) {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
var diffAccounts = make(map[common.Address]*state.Account)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
it, _ := trie.NewDifferenceIterator(a, b)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
for {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Current Path and Hash", "path", pathToStr(it), "hashold", common.Hash(it.Hash()))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if it.Leaf() {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// lookup address
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
path := make([]byte, len(it.Path())-1)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
copy(path, it.Path())
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
addr, err := sdb.addressByPath(path)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error looking up address via path", "path", path, "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// lookup account state
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
var account state.Account
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err := rlp.DecodeBytes(it.LeafBlob(), &account); err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error looking up account via address", "address", addr, "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
// record account to diffs (creation if we are looking at new - old; deletion if old - new)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Account lookup successful", "address", addr, "account", account)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
diffAccounts[*addr] = &account
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
cont := it.Next(true)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if !cont {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
break
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return diffAccounts, nil
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func (sdb *builder) buildDiffEventual(accounts map[common.Address]*state.Account) (map[common.Address]AccountDiff, error) {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
accountDiffs := make(map[common.Address]AccountDiff)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
for addr, val := range accounts {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
sr := val.Root
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
storageDiffs, err := sdb.buildStorageDiffsEventual(sr)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Failed building eventual storage diffs", "Address", addr, "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
codeHash := hexutil.Encode(val.CodeHash)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
hexRoot := val.Root.Hex()
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
nonce := DiffUint64{Value: &val.Nonce}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
balance := DiffBigInt{Value: val.Balance}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
contractRoot := DiffString{Value: &hexRoot}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
accountDiffs[addr] = AccountDiff{
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Nonce: nonce,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Balance: balance,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
CodeHash: codeHash,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
ContractRoot: contractRoot,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Storage: storageDiffs,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return accountDiffs, nil
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func (sdb *builder) buildDiffIncremental(creations map[common.Address]*state.Account, deletions map[common.Address]*state.Account, updatedKeys []string) (map[common.Address]AccountDiff, error) {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
updatedAccounts := make(map[common.Address]AccountDiff)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
for _, val := range updatedKeys {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
createdAcc := creations[common.HexToAddress(val)]
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
deletedAcc := deletions[common.HexToAddress(val)]
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
oldSR := deletedAcc.Root
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
newSR := createdAcc.Root
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if storageDiffs, err := sdb.buildStorageDiffsIncremental(oldSR, newSR); err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Failed building storage diffs", "Address", val, "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
nonce := DiffUint64{Value: &createdAcc.Nonce}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
balance := DiffBigInt{Value: createdAcc.Balance}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
codeHash := hexutil.Encode(createdAcc.CodeHash)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
nHexRoot := createdAcc.Root.Hex()
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
contractRoot := DiffString{Value: &nHexRoot}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
updatedAccounts[common.HexToAddress(val)] = AccountDiff{
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Nonce: nonce,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Balance: balance,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
CodeHash: codeHash,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
ContractRoot: contractRoot,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Storage: storageDiffs,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
delete(creations, common.HexToAddress(val))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
delete(deletions, common.HexToAddress(val))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return updatedAccounts, nil
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func (sdb *builder) buildStorageDiffsEventual(sr common.Hash) (map[string]DiffStorage, error) {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Storage Root For Eventual Diff", "root", sr.Hex())
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
sTrie, err := trie.New(sr, sdb.trieDB)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Info("error in build storage diff eventual", "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
it := sTrie.NodeIterator(make([]byte, 0))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
storageDiffs := buildStorageDiffsFromTrie(it)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return storageDiffs, nil
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func (sdb *builder) buildStorageDiffsIncremental(oldSR common.Hash, newSR common.Hash) (map[string]DiffStorage, error) {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Storage Roots for Incremental Diff", "old", oldSR.Hex(), "new", newSR.Hex())
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
oldTrie, err := trie.New(oldSR, sdb.trieDB)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
newTrie, err := trie.New(newSR, sdb.trieDB)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
oldIt := oldTrie.NodeIterator(make([]byte, 0))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
newIt := newTrie.NodeIterator(make([]byte, 0))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
it, _ := trie.NewDifferenceIterator(oldIt, newIt)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
storageDiffs := buildStorageDiffsFromTrie(it)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return storageDiffs, nil
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func buildStorageDiffsFromTrie(it trie.NodeIterator) map[string]DiffStorage {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
storageDiffs := make(map[string]DiffStorage)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
for {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Iterating over state at path ", "path", pathToStr(it))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if it.Leaf() {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Found leaf in storage", "path", pathToStr(it))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
path := pathToStr(it)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
storageKey:= hexutil.Encode(it.LeafKey())
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
storageValue := hexutil.Encode(it.LeafBlob())
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
storageDiffs[path] = DiffStorage{
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Key: &storageKey,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
Value: &storageValue,
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
cont := it.Next(true)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if !cont {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
break
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return storageDiffs
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
func (sdb *builder) addressByPath(path []byte) (*common.Address, error) {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Looking up address from path", "path", hexutil.Encode(append([]byte("secure-key-"), path...)))
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
if addrBytes, err := sdb.chainDB.Get(append([]byte("secure-key-"), hexToKeyBytes(path)...)); err != nil {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Error("Error looking up address via path", "path", hexutil.Encode(append([]byte("secure-key-"), path...)), "error", err)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
addr := common.BytesToAddress(addrBytes)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
log.Debug("Address found", "Address", addr)
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
return &addr, nil
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
||||
}
|
||||
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a `NodeIterator` initialized with `make([]byte, 0)` enables us to track down deletions while initializing it with `make([]byte{})` yields creations.
I may be missing something but it looks like the I may be missing something but it looks like the `creation` arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls of `buildDiffEventual`), so we may be able to remove it
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉 Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas? That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between `make(byte[], 0)` and `[]byte{}` was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.
The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to `collectDiffNodes` - where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).
I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
|
350
statediff/builder/builder_test.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,350 @@
|
||||
package builder_test
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"bytes"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/consensus/ethash"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/types"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/crypto"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/ethdb"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/params"
|
||||
b "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
"math/big"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"testing"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var (
|
||||
testdb = ethdb.NewMemDatabase()
|
||||
|
||||
testBankKey, _ = crypto.HexToECDSA("b71c71a67e1177ad4e901695e1b4b9ee17ae16c6668d313eac2f96dbcda3f291")
|
||||
testBankAddress = crypto.PubkeyToAddress(testBankKey.PublicKey) //0x71562b71999873DB5b286dF957af199Ec94617F7
|
||||
testBankFunds = big.NewInt(100000000)
|
||||
genesis = core.GenesisBlockForTesting(testdb, testBankAddress, testBankFunds)
|
||||
|
||||
account1Key, _ = crypto.HexToECDSA("8a1f9a8f95be41cd7ccb6168179afb4504aefe388d1e14474d32c45c72ce7b7a")
|
||||
account2Key, _ = crypto.HexToECDSA("49a7b37aa6f6645917e7b807e9d1c00d4fa71f18343b0d4122a4d2df64dd6fee")
|
||||
account1Addr = crypto.PubkeyToAddress(account1Key.PublicKey) //0x703c4b2bD70c169f5717101CaeE543299Fc946C7
|
||||
account2Addr = crypto.PubkeyToAddress(account2Key.PublicKey) //0x0D3ab14BBaD3D99F4203bd7a11aCB94882050E7e
|
||||
contractCode = common.Hex2Bytes("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")
|
||||
contractAddr common.Address
|
||||
emptyAccountDiffEventualMap = make(map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff)
|
||||
emptyAccountDiffIncrementalMap = make(map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff)
|
||||
block0Hash, block1Hash, block2Hash, block3Hash common.Hash
|
||||
block0, block1, block2, block3 *types.Block
|
||||
builder b.Builder
|
||||
miningReward = int64(2000000000000000000)
|
||||
burnAddress = common.HexToAddress("0x0")
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
func TestBuilder(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
_, blockMap := makeChain(3, genesis)
|
||||
block0Hash = common.HexToHash("0xd1721cfd0b29c36fd7a68f25c128e86413fb666a6e1d68e89b875bd299262661")
|
||||
block1Hash = common.HexToHash("0xbbe88de60ba33a3f18c0caa37d827bfb70252e19e40a07cd34041696c35ecb1a")
|
||||
block2Hash = common.HexToHash("0xde75663f36a8497b4bdda2a4b52bd9540b705a2728c7391c59b8cb2cde5a2feb")
|
||||
block3Hash = common.HexToHash("0x76c6d0e39285cee40d5e5fadc6141ca88c8ab8bd1a15d46717205af2efbb4a3c")
|
||||
|
||||
block0 = blockMap[block0Hash]
|
||||
block1 = blockMap[block1Hash]
|
||||
block2 = blockMap[block2Hash]
|
||||
block3 = blockMap[block3Hash]
|
||||
builder = b.NewBuilder(testdb)
|
||||
|
||||
type arguments struct {
|
||||
oldStateRoot common.Hash
|
||||
newStateRoot common.Hash
|
||||
blockNumber int64
|
||||
blockHash common.Hash
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var (
|
||||
balanceChange10000 = int64(10000)
|
||||
balanceChange1000 = int64(1000)
|
||||
block1BankBalance = int64(99990000)
|
||||
block1Account1Balance = int64(10000)
|
||||
block2Account2Balance = int64(1000)
|
||||
nonce0 = uint64(0)
|
||||
nonce1 = uint64(1)
|
||||
nonce2 = uint64(2)
|
||||
nonce3 = uint64(3)
|
||||
originalContractRoot = "0x56e81f171bcc55a6ff8345e692c0f86e5b48e01b996cadc001622fb5e363b421"
|
||||
contractContractRoot = "0x821e2556a290c86405f8160a2d662042a431ba456b9db265c79bb837c04be5f0"
|
||||
newContractRoot = "0x71e0d14b2b93e5c7f9748e69e1fe5f17498a1c3ac3cec29f96af13d7f8a4e070"
|
||||
originalStorageLocation = common.HexToHash("0")
|
||||
originalStorageKey = crypto.Keccak256Hash(originalStorageLocation[:]).String()
|
||||
updatedStorageLocation = common.HexToHash("2")
|
||||
updatedStorageKey = crypto.Keccak256Hash(updatedStorageLocation[:]).String()
|
||||
originalStorageValue = "0x01"
|
||||
updatedStorageValue = "0x03"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var tests = []struct {
|
||||
name string
|
||||
startingArguments arguments
|
||||
expected *b.StateDiff
|
||||
}{
|
||||
{
|
||||
"testEmptyDiff",
|
||||
arguments{
|
||||
oldStateRoot: block0.Root(),
|
||||
newStateRoot: block0.Root(),
|
||||
blockNumber: block0.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
blockHash: block0Hash,
|
||||
},
|
||||
&b.StateDiff{
|
||||
BlockNumber: block0.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
BlockHash: block0Hash,
|
||||
CreatedAccounts: emptyAccountDiffEventualMap,
|
||||
DeletedAccounts: emptyAccountDiffEventualMap,
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts: emptyAccountDiffIncrementalMap,
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"testBlock1",
|
||||
//10000 transferred from testBankAddress to account1Addr
|
||||
arguments{
|
||||
oldStateRoot: block0.Root(),
|
||||
newStateRoot: block1.Root(),
|
||||
blockNumber: block1.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
blockHash: block1Hash,
|
||||
},
|
||||
&b.StateDiff{
|
||||
BlockNumber: block1.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
BlockHash: block1.Hash(),
|
||||
CreatedAccounts: map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff{
|
||||
account1Addr: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce0},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(balanceChange10000)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
burnAddress: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce0},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(miningReward)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
DeletedAccounts: emptyAccountDiffEventualMap,
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts: map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff{
|
||||
testBankAddress: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce1},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(testBankFunds.Int64() - balanceChange10000)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"testBlock2",
|
||||
//1000 transferred from testBankAddress to account1Addr
|
||||
//1000 transferred from account1Addr to account2Addr
|
||||
arguments{
|
||||
oldStateRoot: block1.Root(),
|
||||
newStateRoot: block2.Root(),
|
||||
blockNumber: block2.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
blockHash: block2Hash,
|
||||
},
|
||||
&b.StateDiff{
|
||||
BlockNumber: block2.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
BlockHash: block2.Hash(),
|
||||
CreatedAccounts: map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff{
|
||||
account2Addr: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce0},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(balanceChange1000)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
contractAddr: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce1},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(0)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0x753f98a8d4328b15636e46f66f2cb4bc860100aa17967cc145fcd17d1d4710ea",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &contractContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{
|
||||
originalStorageKey: {
|
||||
Key: &originalStorageKey,
|
||||
Value: &originalStorageValue},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
DeletedAccounts: emptyAccountDiffEventualMap,
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts: map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff{
|
||||
testBankAddress: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce2},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(block1BankBalance - balanceChange1000)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
account1Addr: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce2},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(block1Account1Balance - balanceChange1000 + balanceChange1000)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
burnAddress: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce0},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(miningReward + miningReward)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"testBlock3",
|
||||
//the contract's storage is changed
|
||||
//and the block is mined by account 2
|
||||
arguments{
|
||||
oldStateRoot: block2.Root(),
|
||||
newStateRoot: block3.Root(),
|
||||
blockNumber: block3.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
blockHash: block3.Hash(),
|
||||
},
|
||||
&b.StateDiff{
|
||||
BlockNumber: block3.Number().Int64(),
|
||||
BlockHash: block3.Hash(),
|
||||
CreatedAccounts: map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff{},
|
||||
DeletedAccounts: emptyAccountDiffEventualMap,
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts: map[common.Address]b.AccountDiff{
|
||||
account2Addr: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce0},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(block2Account2Balance + miningReward)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
contractAddr: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce1},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(0)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0x753f98a8d4328b15636e46f66f2cb4bc860100aa17967cc145fcd17d1d4710ea",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &newContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{
|
||||
"0x405787fa12a823e0f2b7631cc41b3ba8828b3321ca811111fa75cd3aa3bb5ace": {
|
||||
Key: &updatedStorageKey,
|
||||
Value: &updatedStorageValue},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
testBankAddress: {
|
||||
Nonce: b.DiffUint64{Value: &nonce3},
|
||||
Balance: b.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(99989000)},
|
||||
CodeHash: "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470",
|
||||
ContractRoot: b.DiffString{Value: &originalContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: map[string]b.DiffStorage{},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for _, test := range tests {
|
||||
arguments := test.startingArguments
|
||||
diff, err := builder.BuildStateDiff(arguments.oldStateRoot, arguments.newStateRoot, arguments.blockNumber, arguments.blockHash)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Error(err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
fields := []string{"BlockNumber", "BlockHash", "DeletedAccounts", "UpdatedAccounts", "CreatedAccounts"}
|
||||
|
||||
for _, field := range fields {
|
||||
reflectionOfDiff := reflect.ValueOf(diff)
|
||||
diffValue := reflect.Indirect(reflectionOfDiff).FieldByName(field)
|
||||
|
||||
reflectionOfExpected := reflect.ValueOf(test.expected)
|
||||
expectedValue := reflect.Indirect(reflectionOfExpected).FieldByName(field)
|
||||
|
||||
diffValueInterface := diffValue.Interface()
|
||||
expectedValueInterface := expectedValue.Interface()
|
||||
|
||||
if !equals(diffValueInterface, expectedValueInterface) {
|
||||
t.Logf("Test failed: %s", test.name)
|
||||
t.Errorf("field: %+v\nactual: %+v\nexpected: %+v", field, diffValueInterface, expectedValueInterface)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func equals(actual, expected interface{}) (success bool) {
|
||||
if actualByteSlice, ok := actual.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
if expectedByteSlice, ok := expected.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
return bytes.Equal(actualByteSlice, expectedByteSlice)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(actual, expected)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// makeChain creates a chain of n blocks starting at and including parent.
|
||||
// the returned hash chain is ordered head->parent. In addition, every 3rd block
|
||||
// contains a transaction and every 5th an uncle to allow testing correct block
|
||||
// reassembly.
|
||||
func makeChain(n int, parent *types.Block) ([]common.Hash, map[common.Hash]*types.Block) {
|
||||
blocks, _ := core.GenerateChain(params.TestChainConfig, parent, ethash.NewFaker(), testdb, n, testChainGen)
|
||||
hashes := make([]common.Hash, n+1)
|
||||
hashes[len(hashes)-1] = parent.Hash()
|
||||
blockm := make(map[common.Hash]*types.Block, n+1)
|
||||
blockm[parent.Hash()] = parent
|
||||
for i, b := range blocks {
|
||||
hashes[len(hashes)-i-2] = b.Hash()
|
||||
blockm[b.Hash()] = b
|
||||
}
|
||||
return hashes, blockm
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testChainGen(i int, block *core.BlockGen) {
|
||||
signer := types.HomesteadSigner{}
|
||||
switch i {
|
||||
case 0:
|
||||
// In block 1, the test bank sends account #1 some ether.
|
||||
tx, _ := types.SignTx(types.NewTransaction(block.TxNonce(testBankAddress), account1Addr, big.NewInt(10000), params.TxGas, nil, nil), signer, testBankKey)
|
||||
block.AddTx(tx)
|
||||
case 1:
|
||||
// In block 2, the test bank sends some more ether to account #1.
|
||||
// account1Addr passes it on to account #2.
|
||||
// account1Addr creates a test contract.
|
||||
tx1, _ := types.SignTx(types.NewTransaction(block.TxNonce(testBankAddress), account1Addr, big.NewInt(1000), params.TxGas, nil, nil), signer, testBankKey)
|
||||
nonce := block.TxNonce(account1Addr)
|
||||
tx2, _ := types.SignTx(types.NewTransaction(nonce, account2Addr, big.NewInt(1000), params.TxGas, nil, nil), signer, account1Key)
|
||||
nonce++
|
||||
tx3, _ := types.SignTx(types.NewContractCreation(nonce, big.NewInt(0), 1000000, big.NewInt(0), contractCode), signer, account1Key)
|
||||
contractAddr = crypto.CreateAddress(account1Addr, nonce) //0xaE9BEa628c4Ce503DcFD7E305CaB4e29E7476592
|
||||
block.AddTx(tx1)
|
||||
block.AddTx(tx2)
|
||||
block.AddTx(tx3)
|
||||
case 2:
|
||||
// Block 3 is empty but was mined by account #2.
|
||||
block.SetCoinbase(account2Addr)
|
||||
//get function: 60cd2685
|
||||
//put function: c16431b9
|
||||
data := common.Hex2Bytes("C16431B900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003")
|
||||
tx, _ := types.SignTx(types.NewTransaction(block.TxNonce(testBankAddress), contractAddr, big.NewInt(0), 100000, nil, data), signer, testBankKey)
|
||||
block.AddTx(tx)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
contract test {
|
||||
|
||||
uint256[100] data;
|
||||
|
||||
constructor() public {
|
||||
data = [1];
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function Put(uint256 addr, uint256 value) {
|
||||
data[addr] = value;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function Get(uint256 addr) constant returns (uint256 value) {
|
||||
return data[addr];
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
*/
|
118
statediff/builder/helpers.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// Copyright 2015 The go-ethereum Authors
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// This file is part of the go-ethereum library.
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
//
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// (at your option) any later version.
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
//
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
//
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// along with the go-ethereum library. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// Contains a batch of utility type declarations used by the tests. As the node
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// operates on unique types, a lot of them are needed to check various features.
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
package builder
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
import (
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
"sort"
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/state"
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/trie"
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
func sortKeys(data map[common.Address]*state.Account) []string {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
var keys []string
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
for key := range data {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
keys = append(keys, key.Hex())
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
sort.Strings(keys)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return keys
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
func findIntersection(a, b []string) []string {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
lenA := len(a)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
lenB := len(b)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
iOfA, iOfB := 0, 0
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
updates := make([]string, 0)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if iOfA >= lenA || iOfB >= lenB {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return updates
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
for {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
switch strings.Compare(a[iOfA], b[iOfB]) {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// a[iOfA] < b[iOfB]
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
case -1:
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
iOfA++
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if iOfA >= lenA {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return updates
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
break
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// a[iOfA] == b[iOfB]
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
case 0:
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
updates = append(updates, a[iOfA])
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
iOfA++
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
iOfB++
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if iOfA >= lenA || iOfB >= lenB {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return updates
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
break
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// a[iOfA] > b[iOfB]
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
case 1:
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
iOfB++
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if iOfB >= lenB {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return updates
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
break
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
func pathToStr(it trie.NodeIterator) string {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
path := it.Path()
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if hasTerm(path) {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
path = path[:len(path)-1]
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
nibblePath := ""
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
for i, v := range common.ToHex(path) {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if i%2 == 0 && i > 1 {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
continue
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
nibblePath = nibblePath + string(v)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return nibblePath
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// Duplicated from trie/encoding.go
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
func hexToKeyBytes(hex []byte) []byte {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if hasTerm(hex) {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
hex = hex[:len(hex)-1]
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
if len(hex)&1 != 0 {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
panic("can't convert hex key of odd length")
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
key := make([]byte, (len(hex)+1)/2)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
decodeNibbles(hex, key)
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return key
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
func decodeNibbles(nibbles []byte, bytes []byte) {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
for bi, ni := 0, 0; ni < len(nibbles); bi, ni = bi+1, ni+2 {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
bytes[bi] = nibbles[ni]<<4 | nibbles[ni+1]
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
// hasTerm returns whether a hex key has the terminator flag.
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
func hasTerm(s []byte) bool {
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
return len(s) > 0 && s[len(s)-1] == 16
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
||||
}
|
||||
Super minor but I think this should be Super minor but I think this should be `hexToKeyBytes`
|
78
statediff/builder/struct.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
|
||||
// Copyright 2015 The go-ethereum Authors
|
||||
// This file is part of the go-ethereum library.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
||||
// it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
|
||||
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
||||
// (at your option) any later version.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
||||
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
||||
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
||||
// GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
|
||||
// along with the go-ethereum library. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
||||
|
||||
// Contains a batch of utility type declarations used by the tests. As the node
|
||||
// operates on unique types, a lot of them are needed to check various features.
|
||||
|
||||
package builder
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"encoding/json"
|
||||
"math/big"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type StateDiff struct {
|
||||
BlockNumber int64 `json:"blockNumber" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
BlockHash common.Hash `json:"blockHash" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
CreatedAccounts map[common.Address]AccountDiff `json:"createdAccounts" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
DeletedAccounts map[common.Address]AccountDiff `json:"deletedAccounts" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts map[common.Address]AccountDiff `json:"updatedAccounts" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
|
||||
encoded []byte
|
||||
err error
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (self *StateDiff) ensureEncoded() {
|
||||
if self.encoded == nil && self.err == nil {
|
||||
self.encoded, self.err = json.Marshal(self)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Implement Encoder interface for StateDiff
|
||||
func (sd *StateDiff) Length() int {
|
||||
sd.ensureEncoded()
|
||||
return len(sd.encoded)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Implement Encoder interface for StateDiff
|
||||
func (sd *StateDiff) Encode() ([]byte, error) {
|
||||
sd.ensureEncoded()
|
||||
return sd.encoded, sd.err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type AccountDiff struct {
|
||||
Nonce DiffUint64 `json:"nonce" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
Balance DiffBigInt `json:"balance" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
CodeHash string `json:"codeHash" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
ContractRoot DiffString `json:"contractRoot" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
Storage map[string]DiffStorage `json:"storage" gencodec:"required"`
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type DiffStorage struct {
|
||||
Key *string `json:"key" gencodec:"optional"`
|
||||
Value *string `json:"value" gencodec:"optional"`
|
||||
}
|
||||
type DiffString struct {
|
||||
Value *string `json:"value" gencodec:"optional"`
|
||||
}
|
||||
type DiffUint64 struct {
|
||||
Value *uint64 `json:"value" gencodec:"optional"`
|
||||
}
|
||||
type DiffBigInt struct {
|
||||
Value *big.Int `json:"value" gencodec:"optional"`
|
||||
}
|
93
statediff/config.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
|
||||
// Copyright 2015 The go-ethereum Authors
|
||||
// This file is part of the go-ethereum library.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
||||
// it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
|
||||
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
||||
// (at your option) any later version.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
||||
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
||||
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
||||
// GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
|
||||
// along with the go-ethereum library. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
||||
|
||||
// Contains a batch of utility type declarations used by the tests. As the node
|
||||
// operates on unique types, a lot of them are needed to check various features.
|
||||
|
||||
package statediff
|
||||
|
||||
import "fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
type Config struct {
|
||||
Mode StateDiffMode // Mode for storing diffs
|
||||
Path string // Path for storing diffs
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type StateDiffMode int
|
||||
|
||||
const (
|
||||
CSV StateDiffMode = iota
|
||||
IPLD
|
||||
LDB
|
||||
SQL
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
func (mode StateDiffMode) IsValid() bool {
|
||||
return mode >= IPLD && mode <= SQL
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// String implements the stringer interface.
|
||||
func (mode StateDiffMode) String() string {
|
||||
switch mode {
|
||||
case CSV:
|
||||
return "csv"
|
||||
case IPLD:
|
||||
return "ipfs"
|
||||
case LDB:
|
||||
return "ldb"
|
||||
case SQL:
|
||||
return "sql"
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return "unknown"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func NewMode(mode string) (StateDiffMode, error) {
|
||||
stateDiffMode := StateDiffMode(0)
|
||||
err := stateDiffMode.UnmarshalText([]byte(mode))
|
||||
return stateDiffMode, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (mode StateDiffMode) MarshalText() ([]byte, error) {
|
||||
switch mode {
|
||||
case CSV:
|
||||
return []byte("ipfs"), nil
|
||||
case IPLD:
|
||||
return []byte("ipfs"), nil
|
||||
case LDB:
|
||||
return []byte("ldb"), nil
|
||||
case SQL:
|
||||
return []byte("sql"), nil
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return nil, fmt.Errorf("unknown state diff storage mode %d", mode)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (mode *StateDiffMode) UnmarshalText(text []byte) error {
|
||||
switch string(text) {
|
||||
case "csv":
|
||||
*mode = CSV
|
||||
case "ipfs":
|
||||
*mode = IPLD
|
||||
case "ldb":
|
||||
*mode = LDB
|
||||
case "sql":
|
||||
*mode = SQL
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return fmt.Errorf(`unknown state diff storage mode %q, want "ipfs", "ldb" or "sql"`, text)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return nil
|
||||
}
|
23
statediff/config_test.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
package statediff_test
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/testhelpers"
|
||||
"testing"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
func TestNewMode(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
mode, err := statediff.NewMode("csv")
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if mode != statediff.CSV {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
_, err = statediff.NewMode("not a real mode")
|
||||
if err == nil {
|
||||
t.Error("Expected an error, and got nil.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
51
statediff/extractor/extractor.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// Copyright 2015 The go-ethereum Authors
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// This file is part of the go-ethereum library.
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
//
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// (at your option) any later version.
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
//
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
//
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// along with the go-ethereum library. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// Contains a batch of utility type declarations used by the tests. As the node
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
// operates on unique types, a lot of them are needed to check various features.
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
package extractor
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
import (
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/types"
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/publisher"
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
)
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
type Extractor interface {
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
ExtractStateDiff(parent, current types.Block) (string, error)
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
}
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
type extractor struct {
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
Builder builder.Builder // Interface for building state diff objects from two blocks
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
Publisher publisher.Publisher // Interface for publishing state diff objects to a datastore (e.g. IPFS)
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
}
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
func NewExtractor(builder builder.Builder, publisher publisher.Publisher) *extractor {
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
return &extractor{
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
Builder: builder,
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
Publisher: publisher,
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
}
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
}
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
func (e *extractor) ExtractStateDiff(parent, current types.Block) (string, error) {
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
stateDiff, err := e.Builder.BuildStateDiff(parent.Root(), current.Root(), current.Number().Int64(), current.Hash())
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
return "", err
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
}
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
return e.Publisher.PublishStateDiff(stateDiff)
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
||||
}
|
||||
i-norden
commented
Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment. Doesn't look like this needs to return an error at the moment.
👍 nice catch 👍 nice catch
|
122
statediff/extractor/extractor_test.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
|
||||
package extractor_test
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"bytes"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/types"
|
||||
b "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
e "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/extractor"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/testhelpers/mocks"
|
||||
"math/big"
|
||||
"math/rand"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"testing"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var publisher mocks.Publisher
|
||||
var builder mocks.Builder
|
||||
var currentBlockNumber *big.Int
|
||||
var parentBlock, currentBlock *types.Block
|
||||
var expectedStateDiff b.StateDiff
|
||||
var extractor e.Extractor
|
||||
var err error
|
||||
|
||||
func TestExtractor(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
publisher = mocks.Publisher{}
|
||||
builder = mocks.Builder{}
|
||||
extractor = e.NewExtractor(&builder, &publisher)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Error(err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
blockNumber := rand.Int63()
|
||||
parentBlockNumber := big.NewInt(blockNumber - int64(1))
|
||||
currentBlockNumber = big.NewInt(blockNumber)
|
||||
parentBlock = types.NewBlock(&types.Header{Number: parentBlockNumber}, nil, nil, nil)
|
||||
currentBlock = types.NewBlock(&types.Header{Number: currentBlockNumber}, nil, nil, nil)
|
||||
|
||||
expectedStateDiff = b.StateDiff{
|
||||
BlockNumber: blockNumber,
|
||||
BlockHash: currentBlock.Hash(),
|
||||
CreatedAccounts: nil,
|
||||
DeletedAccounts: nil,
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts: nil,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
testBuildStateDiffStruct(t)
|
||||
testBuildStateDiffErrorHandling(t)
|
||||
testPublishingStateDiff(t)
|
||||
testPublisherErrorHandling(t)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testBuildStateDiffStruct(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
builder.SetStateDiffToBuild(&expectedStateDiff)
|
||||
|
||||
_, err = extractor.ExtractStateDiff(*parentBlock, *currentBlock)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Error(err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !equals(builder.OldStateRoot, parentBlock.Root()) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(builder.NewStateRoot, currentBlock.Root()) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(builder.BlockNumber, currentBlockNumber.Int64()) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(builder.BlockHash, currentBlock.Hash()) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testBuildStateDiffErrorHandling(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
builder.SetBuilderError(mocks.Error)
|
||||
|
||||
_, err = extractor.ExtractStateDiff(*parentBlock, *currentBlock)
|
||||
if err == nil {
|
||||
t.Error(err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !equals(err, mocks.Error) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
builder.SetBuilderError(nil)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testPublishingStateDiff(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
builder.SetStateDiffToBuild(&expectedStateDiff)
|
||||
|
||||
_, err = extractor.ExtractStateDiff(*parentBlock, *currentBlock)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Error(err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !equals(publisher.StateDiff, &expectedStateDiff) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testPublisherErrorHandling(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
publisher.SetPublisherError(mocks.Error)
|
||||
|
||||
_, err = extractor.ExtractStateDiff(*parentBlock, *currentBlock)
|
||||
if err == nil {
|
||||
t.Error("Expected an error, but it didn't occur.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(err, mocks.Error) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
publisher.SetPublisherError(nil)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func equals(actual, expected interface{}) (success bool) {
|
||||
if actualByteSlice, ok := actual.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
if expectedByteSlice, ok := expected.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
return bytes.Equal(actualByteSlice, expectedByteSlice)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(actual, expected)
|
||||
}
|
137
statediff/publisher/csv.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
package publisher
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
import (
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"encoding/csv"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"os"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"path/filepath"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"strconv"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"time"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
var (
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
Headers = []string{
|
||||
I think we probably want to include the address (and/or trie key) as a field here I think we probably want to include the address (and/or trie key) as a field here
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"blockNumber", "blockHash", "accountAction", "codeHash",
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"nonceValue", "balanceValue", "contractRoot", "storageDiffPaths",
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"accountAddress", "storageKey", "storageValue",
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
timeStampFormat = "20060102150405.00000"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
deletedAccountAction = "deleted"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
createdAccountAction = "created"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
updatedAccountAction = "updated"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
func createCSVFilePath(path, blockNumber string) string {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
now := time.Now()
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
timeStamp := now.Format(timeStampFormat)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
suffix := timeStamp + "-" + blockNumber
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
filePath := filepath.Join(path, suffix)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
filePath = filePath + ".csv"
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
return filePath
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
func (p *publisher) publishStateDiffToCSV(sd builder.StateDiff) (string, error) {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
filePath := createCSVFilePath(p.Config.Path, strconv.FormatInt(sd.BlockNumber, 10))
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
file, err := os.OpenFile(filePath, os.O_APPEND|os.O_CREATE|os.O_WRONLY, 0644)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
return "", err
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
defer file.Close()
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
writer := csv.NewWriter(file)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
defer writer.Flush()
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
var data [][]string
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
data = append(data, Headers)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for _, row := range accumulateAccountRows(sd) {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
data = append(data, row)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for _, value := range data {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
err := writer.Write(value)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
return "", err
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
return filePath, nil
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
func accumulateAccountRows(sd builder.StateDiff) [][]string {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
var accountRows [][]string
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for accountAddr, accountDiff := range sd.CreatedAccounts {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
formattedAccountData := formatAccountData(accountAddr, accountDiff, sd, createdAccountAction)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for _, accountData := range formattedAccountData {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
accountRows = append(accountRows, accountData)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for accountAddr, accountDiff := range sd.UpdatedAccounts {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
formattedAccountData := formatAccountData(accountAddr, accountDiff, sd, updatedAccountAction)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for _, accountData := range formattedAccountData {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
accountRows = append(accountRows, accountData)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for accountAddr, accountDiff := range sd.DeletedAccounts {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
formattedAccountData := formatAccountData(accountAddr, accountDiff, sd, deletedAccountAction)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for _, accountData := range formattedAccountData {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
accountRows = append(accountRows, accountData)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
return accountRows
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
func formatAccountData(accountAddr common.Address, accountDiff builder.AccountDiff, sd builder.StateDiff, accountAction string) [][]string {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
blockNumberString := strconv.FormatInt(sd.BlockNumber, 10)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
blockHash := sd.BlockHash.String()
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
codeHash := accountDiff.CodeHash
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
nonce := strconv.FormatUint(*accountDiff.Nonce.Value, 10)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
balance := accountDiff.Balance.Value.String()
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
newContractRoot := accountDiff.ContractRoot.Value
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
address := accountAddr.String()
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
var result [][]string
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
if len(accountDiff.Storage) > 0 {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
for storagePath, storage := range accountDiff.Storage {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
formattedAccountData := []string{
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
blockNumberString,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
blockHash,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
accountAction,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
codeHash,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
nonce,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
balance,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
*newContractRoot,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
storagePath,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
address,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
*storage.Key,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
*storage.Value,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
result = append(result, formattedAccountData)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
formattedAccountData := []string{
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
blockNumberString,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
blockHash,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
accountAction,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
codeHash,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
nonce,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
balance,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
*newContractRoot,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"",
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
address,
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"",
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
"",
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
result = append(result, formattedAccountData)
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
return result
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
||||
}
|
||||
And then I think the And then I think the `_` here could be captured to publish the address
I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't I'm a little confused about how this works - isn't `accountDiff.Storage` a map? Does `k` capture the key and value? Thinking we probably want both of those so that we can parse the new value and associate it with the corresponding key when consuming the data
Yep, good call - Yep, good call - `k` is just capturing the path to the storage value. I think I'll want both the key and the value when I add the storage value to the csv 👌
|
48
statediff/publisher/publisher.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||
// Copyright 2015 The go-ethereum Authors
|
||||
// This file is part of the go-ethereum library.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
|
||||
// it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
|
||||
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
|
||||
// (at your option) any later version.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// The go-ethereum library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
|
||||
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
|
||||
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
|
||||
// GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
|
||||
// along with the go-ethereum library. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
|
||||
|
||||
// Contains a batch of utility type declarations used by the tests. As the node
|
||||
// operates on unique types, a lot of them are needed to check various features.
|
||||
|
||||
package publisher
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type Publisher interface {
|
||||
PublishStateDiff(sd *builder.StateDiff) (string, error)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type publisher struct {
|
||||
Config statediff.Config
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func NewPublisher(config statediff.Config) (*publisher, error) {
|
||||
return &publisher{
|
||||
Config: config,
|
||||
}, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (p *publisher) PublishStateDiff(sd *builder.StateDiff) (string, error) {
|
||||
switch p.Config.Mode {
|
||||
case statediff.CSV:
|
||||
return p.publishStateDiffToCSV(*sd)
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return p.publishStateDiffToCSV(*sd)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
315
statediff/publisher/publisher_test.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,315 @@
|
||||
package publisher_test
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"bytes"
|
||||
"encoding/csv"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
p "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/publisher"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/testhelpers"
|
||||
"github.com/pkg/errors"
|
||||
"io/ioutil"
|
||||
"os"
|
||||
"path/filepath"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"strconv"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
"testing"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var (
|
||||
tempDir = os.TempDir()
|
||||
testFilePrefix = "test-statediff"
|
||||
publisher p.Publisher
|
||||
dir string
|
||||
err error
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var expectedCreatedAccountRow = []string{
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.BlockNumber, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.BlockHash,
|
||||
"created",
|
||||
testhelpers.CodeHash,
|
||||
strconv.FormatUint(testhelpers.NewNonceValue, 10),
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.NewBalanceValue, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.ContractRoot,
|
||||
testhelpers.StoragePath,
|
||||
testhelpers.ContractAddress,
|
||||
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001",
|
||||
testhelpers.StorageValue,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var expectedCreatedAccountWithoutStorageUpdateRow = []string{
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.BlockNumber, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.BlockHash,
|
||||
"created",
|
||||
testhelpers.CodeHash,
|
||||
strconv.FormatUint(testhelpers.NewNonceValue, 10),
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.NewBalanceValue, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.ContractRoot,
|
||||
"",
|
||||
testhelpers.AnotherContractAddress,
|
||||
"",
|
||||
"",
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var expectedUpdatedAccountRow = []string{
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.BlockNumber, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.BlockHash,
|
||||
"updated",
|
||||
testhelpers.CodeHash,
|
||||
strconv.FormatUint(testhelpers.NewNonceValue, 10),
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.NewBalanceValue, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.ContractRoot,
|
||||
testhelpers.StoragePath,
|
||||
testhelpers.ContractAddress,
|
||||
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001",
|
||||
testhelpers.StorageValue,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var expectedDeletedAccountRow = []string{
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.BlockNumber, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.BlockHash,
|
||||
"deleted",
|
||||
testhelpers.CodeHash,
|
||||
strconv.FormatUint(testhelpers.NewNonceValue, 10),
|
||||
strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.NewBalanceValue, 10),
|
||||
testhelpers.ContractRoot,
|
||||
testhelpers.StoragePath,
|
||||
testhelpers.ContractAddress,
|
||||
"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001",
|
||||
testhelpers.StorageValue,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func TestPublisher(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
dir, err = ioutil.TempDir(tempDir, testFilePrefix)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Error(err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
config := statediff.Config{
|
||||
Path: dir,
|
||||
Mode: statediff.CSV,
|
||||
}
|
||||
publisher, err = p.NewPublisher(config)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Error(err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type Test func(t *testing.T)
|
||||
|
||||
var tests = []Test{
|
||||
testFileName,
|
||||
testColumnHeaders,
|
||||
testAccountDiffs,
|
||||
testWhenNoDiff,
|
||||
testDefaultPublisher,
|
||||
testDefaultDirectory,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for _, test := range tests {
|
||||
test(t)
|
||||
err := removeFilesFromDir(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf("Error removing files from temp dir: %s", dir)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func removeFilesFromDir(dir string) error {
|
||||
files, err := filepath.Glob(filepath.Join(dir, "*"))
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for _, file := range files {
|
||||
err = os.RemoveAll(file)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return err
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testFileName(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
fileName, err := publisher.PublishStateDiff(&testhelpers.TestStateDiff)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !strings.HasPrefix(fileName, dir) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.TestFailureFormatString, t.Name(), dir, fileName)
|
||||
}
|
||||
blockNumberWithFileExt := strconv.FormatInt(testhelpers.BlockNumber, 10) + ".csv"
|
||||
if !strings.HasSuffix(fileName, blockNumberWithFileExt) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.TestFailureFormatString, t.Name(), blockNumberWithFileExt, fileName)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testColumnHeaders(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
_, err = publisher.PublishStateDiff(&testhelpers.TestStateDiff)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
file, err := getTestDiffFile(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
lines, err := csv.NewReader(file).ReadAll()
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(lines) < 1 {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(lines[0], p.Headers) {
|
||||
t.Error()
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testAccountDiffs(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
// it persists the created, updated and deleted account diffs to a CSV file
|
||||
_, err = publisher.PublishStateDiff(&testhelpers.TestStateDiff)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
file, err := getTestDiffFile(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
lines, err := csv.NewReader(file).ReadAll()
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(lines) <= 3 {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(lines[1], expectedCreatedAccountRow) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(lines[2], expectedCreatedAccountWithoutStorageUpdateRow) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(lines[3], expectedUpdatedAccountRow) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(lines[4], expectedDeletedAccountRow) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testWhenNoDiff(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
//it creates an empty CSV when there is no diff
|
||||
emptyDiff := builder.StateDiff{}
|
||||
_, err = publisher.PublishStateDiff(&emptyDiff)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
file, err := getTestDiffFile(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
lines, err := csv.NewReader(file).ReadAll()
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !equals(len(lines), 1) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testDefaultPublisher(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
//it defaults to publishing state diffs to a CSV file when no mode is configured
|
||||
config := statediff.Config{Path: dir}
|
||||
publisher, err = p.NewPublisher(config)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
_, err = publisher.PublishStateDiff(&testhelpers.TestStateDiff)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
file, err := getTestDiffFile(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
lines, err := csv.NewReader(file).ReadAll()
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(len(lines), 5) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(lines[0], p.Headers) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func testDefaultDirectory(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
//it defaults to publishing CSV files in the current directory when no path is configured
|
||||
config := statediff.Config{}
|
||||
publisher, err = p.NewPublisher(config)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
err := os.Chdir(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
_, err = publisher.PublishStateDiff(&testhelpers.TestStateDiff)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
file, err := getTestDiffFile(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
lines, err := csv.NewReader(file).ReadAll()
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(len(lines), 5) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !equals(lines[0], p.Headers) {
|
||||
t.Errorf(testhelpers.ErrorFormatString, t.Name(), err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func getTestDiffFile(dir string) (*os.File, error) {
|
||||
files, err := ioutil.ReadDir(dir)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(files) == 0 {
|
||||
return nil, errors.New("There are 0 files.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
fileName := files[0].Name()
|
||||
filePath := filepath.Join(dir, fileName)
|
||||
|
||||
return os.Open(filePath)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func equals(actual, expected interface{}) (success bool) {
|
||||
if actualByteSlice, ok := actual.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
if expectedByteSlice, ok := expected.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
return bytes.Equal(actualByteSlice, expectedByteSlice)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(actual, expected)
|
||||
}
|
82
statediff/service/service.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
||||
package service
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/ethdb"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/p2p"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/rpc"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff"
|
||||
b "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
e "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/extractor"
|
||||
p "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/publisher"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/types"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/event"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/log"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BlockChain interface {
|
||||
SubscribeChainEvent(ch chan<- core.ChainEvent) event.Subscription
|
||||
GetBlockByHash(hash common.Hash) *types.Block
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type StateDiffService struct {
|
||||
Builder *b.Builder
|
||||
Extractor e.Extractor
|
||||
BlockChain BlockChain
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func NewStateDiffService(db ethdb.Database, blockChain *core.BlockChain, config statediff.Config) (*StateDiffService, error) {
|
||||
builder := b.NewBuilder(db)
|
||||
publisher, err := p.NewPublisher(config)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return nil, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
extractor := e.NewExtractor(builder, publisher)
|
||||
return &StateDiffService{
|
||||
BlockChain: blockChain,
|
||||
Extractor: extractor,
|
||||
}, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (StateDiffService) Protocols() []p2p.Protocol {
|
||||
return []p2p.Protocol{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (StateDiffService) APIs() []rpc.API {
|
||||
return []rpc.API{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (sds *StateDiffService) Loop(events chan core.ChainEvent) {
|
||||
for elem := range events {
|
||||
currentBlock := elem.Block
|
||||
parentHash := currentBlock.ParentHash()
|
||||
parentBlock := sds.BlockChain.GetBlockByHash(parentHash)
|
||||
|
||||
stateDiffLocation, err := sds.Extractor.ExtractStateDiff(*parentBlock, *currentBlock)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
log.Error("Error extracting statediff", "block number", currentBlock.Number(), "error", err)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
log.Info("Statediff extracted", "block number", currentBlock.Number(), "location", stateDiffLocation)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var eventsChannel chan core.ChainEvent
|
||||
|
||||
func (sds *StateDiffService) Start(server *p2p.Server) error {
|
||||
log.Info("Starting statediff service")
|
||||
eventsChannel := make(chan core.ChainEvent, 10)
|
||||
sds.BlockChain.SubscribeChainEvent(eventsChannel)
|
||||
go sds.Loop(eventsChannel)
|
||||
return nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (StateDiffService) Stop() error {
|
||||
log.Info("Stopping statediff service")
|
||||
close(eventsChannel)
|
||||
|
||||
return nil
|
||||
}
|
76
statediff/service/service_test.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||
package service_test
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/types"
|
||||
service2 "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/service"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/testhelpers/mocks"
|
||||
"math/big"
|
||||
"math/rand"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"testing"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
func TestServiceLoop(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
testServiceLoop(t)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var (
|
||||
eventsChannel = make(chan core.ChainEvent, 10)
|
||||
|
||||
parentHeader1 = types.Header{Number: big.NewInt(rand.Int63())}
|
||||
parentHeader2 = types.Header{Number: big.NewInt(rand.Int63())}
|
||||
|
||||
parentBlock1 = types.NewBlock(&parentHeader1, nil, nil, nil)
|
||||
parentBlock2 = types.NewBlock(&parentHeader2, nil, nil, nil)
|
||||
|
||||
parentHash1 = parentBlock1.Hash()
|
||||
parentHash2 = parentBlock2.Hash()
|
||||
|
||||
header1 = types.Header{ParentHash: parentHash1}
|
||||
header2 = types.Header{ParentHash: parentHash2}
|
||||
|
||||
block1 = types.NewBlock(&header1, nil, nil, nil)
|
||||
block2 = types.NewBlock(&header2, nil, nil, nil)
|
||||
|
||||
event1 = core.ChainEvent{Block: block1}
|
||||
event2 = core.ChainEvent{Block: block2}
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
func testServiceLoop(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
eventsChannel <- event1
|
||||
eventsChannel <- event2
|
||||
|
||||
extractor := mocks.Extractor{}
|
||||
close(eventsChannel)
|
||||
|
||||
blockChain := mocks.BlockChain{}
|
||||
service := service2.StateDiffService{
|
||||
Builder: nil,
|
||||
Extractor: &extractor,
|
||||
BlockChain: &blockChain,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
blockChain.SetParentBlockToReturn([]*types.Block{parentBlock1, parentBlock2})
|
||||
service.Loop(eventsChannel)
|
||||
|
||||
//parent and current blocks are passed to the extractor
|
||||
expectedCurrentBlocks := []types.Block{*block1, *block2}
|
||||
if !reflect.DeepEqual(extractor.CurrentBlocks, expectedCurrentBlocks) {
|
||||
t.Error("Test failure:", t.Name())
|
||||
t.Logf("Actual does not equal expected.\nactual:%+v\nexpected: %+v", extractor.CurrentBlocks, expectedCurrentBlocks)
|
||||
}
|
||||
expectedParentBlocks := []types.Block{*parentBlock1, *parentBlock2}
|
||||
if !reflect.DeepEqual(extractor.ParentBlocks, expectedParentBlocks) {
|
||||
t.Error("Test failure:", t.Name())
|
||||
t.Logf("Actual does not equal expected.\nactual:%+v\nexpected: %+v", extractor.CurrentBlocks, expectedParentBlocks)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//look up the parent block from its hash
|
||||
expectedHashes := []common.Hash{block1.ParentHash(), block2.ParentHash()}
|
||||
if !reflect.DeepEqual(blockChain.ParentHashesLookedUp, expectedHashes) {
|
||||
t.Error("Test failure:", t.Name())
|
||||
t.Logf("Actual does not equal expected.\nactual:%+v\nexpected: %+v", blockChain.ParentHashesLookedUp, expectedHashes)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
4
statediff/testhelpers/helpers.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
|
||||
package testhelpers
|
||||
|
||||
var ErrorFormatString = "Error: %s, %+v"
|
||||
var TestFailureFormatString = "Test failed: %s\nexpected %+v, got %+v\n"
|
34
statediff/testhelpers/mocks/blockchain.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||
package mocks
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/types"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/event"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BlockChain struct {
|
||||
ParentHashesLookedUp []common.Hash
|
||||
parentBlocksToReturn []*types.Block
|
||||
callCount int
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (mc *BlockChain) SetParentBlockToReturn(blocks []*types.Block) {
|
||||
mc.parentBlocksToReturn = blocks
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (mc *BlockChain) GetBlockByHash(hash common.Hash) *types.Block {
|
||||
mc.ParentHashesLookedUp = append(mc.ParentHashesLookedUp, hash)
|
||||
|
||||
var parentBlock types.Block
|
||||
if len(mc.parentBlocksToReturn) > 0 {
|
||||
parentBlock = *mc.parentBlocksToReturn[mc.callCount]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
mc.callCount++
|
||||
return &parentBlock
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (BlockChain) SubscribeChainEvent(ch chan<- core.ChainEvent) event.Subscription {
|
||||
panic("implement me")
|
||||
}
|
32
statediff/testhelpers/mocks/builder.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
package mocks
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type Builder struct {
|
||||
OldStateRoot common.Hash
|
||||
NewStateRoot common.Hash
|
||||
BlockNumber int64
|
||||
BlockHash common.Hash
|
||||
stateDiff *builder.StateDiff
|
||||
builderError error
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (builder *Builder) BuildStateDiff(oldStateRoot, newStateRoot common.Hash, blockNumber int64, blockHash common.Hash) (*builder.StateDiff, error) {
|
||||
builder.OldStateRoot = oldStateRoot
|
||||
builder.NewStateRoot = newStateRoot
|
||||
builder.BlockNumber = blockNumber
|
||||
builder.BlockHash = blockHash
|
||||
|
||||
return builder.stateDiff, builder.builderError
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (builder *Builder) SetStateDiffToBuild(stateDiff *builder.StateDiff) {
|
||||
builder.stateDiff = stateDiff
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (builder *Builder) SetBuilderError(err error) {
|
||||
builder.builderError = err
|
||||
}
|
5
statediff/testhelpers/mocks/error.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
|
||||
package mocks
|
||||
|
||||
import "errors"
|
||||
|
||||
var Error = errors.New("mock error")
|
20
statediff/testhelpers/mocks/extractor.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
package mocks
|
||||
|
||||
import "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/core/types"
|
||||
|
||||
type Extractor struct {
|
||||
ParentBlocks []types.Block
|
||||
CurrentBlocks []types.Block
|
||||
extractError error
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (me *Extractor) ExtractStateDiff(parent, current types.Block) (string, error) {
|
||||
me.ParentBlocks = append(me.ParentBlocks, parent)
|
||||
me.CurrentBlocks = append(me.CurrentBlocks, current)
|
||||
|
||||
return "", me.extractError
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (me *Extractor) SetExtractError(err error) {
|
||||
me.extractError = err
|
||||
}
|
17
statediff/testhelpers/mocks/publisher.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
package mocks
|
||||
|
||||
import "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
|
||||
type Publisher struct {
|
||||
StateDiff *builder.StateDiff
|
||||
publisherError error
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (publisher *Publisher) PublishStateDiff(sd *builder.StateDiff) (string, error) {
|
||||
publisher.StateDiff = sd
|
||||
return "", publisher.publisherError
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (publisher *Publisher) SetPublisherError(err error) {
|
||||
publisher.publisherError = err
|
||||
}
|
69
statediff/testhelpers/test_data.go
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
|
||||
package testhelpers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/common"
|
||||
"github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/statediff/builder"
|
||||
"math/big"
|
||||
"math/rand"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var (
|
||||
BlockNumber = rand.Int63()
|
||||
BlockHash = "0xfa40fbe2d98d98b3363a778d52f2bcd29d6790b9b3f3cab2b167fd12d3550f73"
|
||||
CodeHash = "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470"
|
||||
NewNonceValue = rand.Uint64()
|
||||
NewBalanceValue = rand.Int63()
|
||||
ContractRoot = "0x56e81f171bcc55a6ff8345e692c0f86e5b48e01b996cadc001622fb5e363b421"
|
||||
StoragePath = "0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470"
|
||||
StorageKey = "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001"
|
||||
StorageValue = "0x03"
|
||||
storage = map[string]builder.DiffStorage{StoragePath: {
|
||||
Key: &StorageKey,
|
||||
Value: &StorageValue,
|
||||
}}
|
||||
emptyStorage = map[string]builder.DiffStorage{}
|
||||
address = common.HexToAddress("0xaE9BEa628c4Ce503DcFD7E305CaB4e29E7476592")
|
||||
anotherAddress = common.HexToAddress("0xaE9BEa628c4Ce503DcFD7E305CaB4e29E7476593")
|
||||
ContractAddress = address.String()
|
||||
AnotherContractAddress = anotherAddress.String()
|
||||
CreatedAccountDiffs = map[common.Address]builder.AccountDiff{
|
||||
address: {
|
||||
Nonce: builder.DiffUint64{Value: &NewNonceValue},
|
||||
Balance: builder.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(NewBalanceValue)},
|
||||
ContractRoot: builder.DiffString{Value: &ContractRoot},
|
||||
CodeHash: CodeHash,
|
||||
Storage: storage,
|
||||
},
|
||||
anotherAddress: {
|
||||
Nonce: builder.DiffUint64{Value: &NewNonceValue},
|
||||
Balance: builder.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(NewBalanceValue)},
|
||||
CodeHash: CodeHash,
|
||||
ContractRoot: builder.DiffString{Value: &ContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: emptyStorage,
|
||||
},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
UpdatedAccountDiffs = map[common.Address]builder.AccountDiff{address: {
|
||||
Nonce: builder.DiffUint64{Value: &NewNonceValue},
|
||||
Balance: builder.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(NewBalanceValue)},
|
||||
CodeHash: CodeHash,
|
||||
ContractRoot: builder.DiffString{Value: &ContractRoot},
|
||||
Storage: storage,
|
||||
}}
|
||||
|
||||
DeletedAccountDiffs = map[common.Address]builder.AccountDiff{address: {
|
||||
Nonce: builder.DiffUint64{Value: &NewNonceValue},
|
||||
Balance: builder.DiffBigInt{Value: big.NewInt(NewBalanceValue)},
|
||||
ContractRoot: builder.DiffString{Value: &ContractRoot},
|
||||
CodeHash: CodeHash,
|
||||
Storage: storage,
|
||||
}}
|
||||
|
||||
TestStateDiff = builder.StateDiff{
|
||||
BlockNumber: BlockNumber,
|
||||
BlockHash: common.HexToHash(BlockHash),
|
||||
CreatedAccounts: CreatedAccountDiffs,
|
||||
DeletedAccounts: DeletedAccountDiffs,
|
||||
UpdatedAccounts: UpdatedAccountDiffs,
|
||||
}
|
||||
)
|
@ -73,9 +73,9 @@ func keybytesToHex(str []byte) []byte {
|
||||
return nibbles
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// hexToKeybytes turns hex nibbles into key bytes.
|
||||
// hexToKeyBytes turns hex nibbles into key bytes.
|
||||
// This can only be used for keys of even length.
|
||||
func hexToKeybytes(hex []byte) []byte {
|
||||
func hexToKeyBytes(hex []byte) []byte {
|
||||
if hasTerm(hex) {
|
||||
hex = hex[:len(hex)-1]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ func TestHexKeybytes(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
if h := keybytesToHex(test.key); !bytes.Equal(h, test.hexOut) {
|
||||
t.Errorf("keybytesToHex(%x) -> %x, want %x", test.key, h, test.hexOut)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if k := hexToKeybytes(test.hexIn); !bytes.Equal(k, test.key) {
|
||||
t.Errorf("hexToKeybytes(%x) -> %x, want %x", test.hexIn, k, test.key)
|
||||
if k := hexToKeyBytes(test.hexIn); !bytes.Equal(k, test.key) {
|
||||
t.Errorf("hexToKeyBytes(%x) -> %x, want %x", test.hexIn, k, test.key)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@ -99,6 +99,6 @@ func BenchmarkKeybytesToHex(b *testing.B) {
|
||||
func BenchmarkHexToKeybytes(b *testing.B) {
|
||||
testBytes := []byte{7, 6, 6, 5, 7, 2, 6, 2, 16}
|
||||
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
|
||||
hexToKeybytes(testBytes)
|
||||
hexToKeyBytes(testBytes)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ func (it *nodeIterator) Leaf() bool {
|
||||
func (it *nodeIterator) LeafKey() []byte {
|
||||
if len(it.stack) > 0 {
|
||||
if _, ok := it.stack[len(it.stack)-1].node.(valueNode); ok {
|
||||
return hexToKeybytes(it.path)
|
||||
return hexToKeyBytes(it.path)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
panic("not at leaf")
|
||||
|
125
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/CHANGELOG.md
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
|
||||
## 1.4.3
|
||||
|
||||
### Fixes:
|
||||
|
||||
- ensure file name and line numbers are correctly reported for XUnit [6fff58f]
|
||||
- Fixed matcher for content-type (#305) [69d9b43]
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.4.2
|
||||
|
||||
### Fixes:
|
||||
|
||||
- Add go.mod and go.sum files to define the gomega go module [f3de367, a085d30]
|
||||
- Work around go vet issue with Go v1.11 (#300) [40dd6ad]
|
||||
- Better output when using with go XUnit-style tests, fixes #255 (#297) [29a4b97]
|
||||
- Fix MatchJSON fail to parse json.RawMessage (#298) [ae19f1b]
|
||||
- show threshold in failure message of BeNumericallyMatcher (#293) [4bbecc8]
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.4.1
|
||||
|
||||
### Fixes:
|
||||
|
||||
- Update documentation formatting and examples (#289) [9be8410]
|
||||
- allow 'Receive' matcher to be used with concrete types (#286) [41673fd]
|
||||
- Fix data race in ghttp server (#283) [7ac6b01]
|
||||
- Travis badge should only show master [cc102ab]
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.4.0
|
||||
|
||||
### Features
|
||||
- Make string pretty diff user configurable (#273) [eb112ce, 649b44d]
|
||||
|
||||
### Fixes
|
||||
- Use httputil.DumpRequest to pretty-print unhandled requests (#278) [a4ff0fc, b7d1a52]
|
||||
- fix typo floa32 > float32 (#272) [041ae3b, 6e33911]
|
||||
- Fix link to documentation on adding your own matchers (#270) [bb2c830, fcebc62]
|
||||
- Use setters and getters to avoid race condition (#262) [13057c3, a9c79f1]
|
||||
- Avoid sending a signal if the process is not alive (#259) [b8043e5, 4fc1762]
|
||||
- Improve message from AssignableToTypeOf when expected value is nil (#281) [9c1fb20]
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.3.0
|
||||
|
||||
Improvements:
|
||||
|
||||
- The `Equal` matcher matches byte slices more performantly.
|
||||
- Improved how `MatchError` matches error strings.
|
||||
- `MatchXML` ignores the order of xml node attributes.
|
||||
- Improve support for XUnit style golang tests. ([#254](https://github.com/onsi/gomega/issues/254))
|
||||
|
||||
Bug Fixes:
|
||||
|
||||
- Diff generation now handles multi-byte sequences correctly.
|
||||
- Multiple goroutines can now call `gexec.Build` concurrently.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.2.0
|
||||
|
||||
Improvements:
|
||||
|
||||
- Added `BeSent` which attempts to send a value down a channel and fails if the attempt blocks. Can be paired with `Eventually` to safely send a value down a channel with a timeout.
|
||||
- `Ω`, `Expect`, `Eventually`, and `Consistently` now immediately `panic` if there is no registered fail handler. This is always a mistake that can hide failing tests.
|
||||
- `Receive()` no longer errors when passed a closed channel, it's perfectly fine to attempt to read from a closed channel so Ω(c).Should(Receive()) always fails and Ω(c).ShoudlNot(Receive()) always passes with a closed channel.
|
||||
- Added `HavePrefix` and `HaveSuffix` matchers.
|
||||
- `ghttp` can now handle concurrent requests.
|
||||
- Added `Succeed` which allows one to write `Ω(MyFunction()).Should(Succeed())`.
|
||||
- Improved `ghttp`'s behavior around failing assertions and panics:
|
||||
- If a registered handler makes a failing assertion `ghttp` will return `500`.
|
||||
- If a registered handler panics, `ghttp` will return `500` *and* fail the test. This is new behavior that may cause existing code to break. This code is almost certainly incorrect and creating a false positive.
|
||||
- `ghttp` servers can take an `io.Writer`. `ghttp` will write a line to the writer when each request arrives.
|
||||
- Added `WithTransform` matcher to allow munging input data before feeding into the relevant matcher
|
||||
- Added boolean `And`, `Or`, and `Not` matchers to allow creating composite matchers
|
||||
- Added `gbytes.TimeoutCloser`, `gbytes.TimeoutReader`, and `gbytes.TimeoutWriter` - these are convenience wrappers that timeout if the underlying Closer/Reader/Writer does not return within the alloted time.
|
||||
- Added `gbytes.BufferReader` - this constructs a `gbytes.Buffer` that asynchronously reads the passed-in `io.Reader` into its buffer.
|
||||
|
||||
Bug Fixes:
|
||||
- gexec: `session.Wait` now uses `EventuallyWithOffset` to get the right line number in the failure.
|
||||
- `ContainElement` no longer bails if a passed-in matcher errors.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.0 (8/2/2014)
|
||||
|
||||
No changes. Dropping "beta" from the version number.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.0.0-beta (7/8/2014)
|
||||
Breaking Changes:
|
||||
|
||||
- Changed OmegaMatcher interface. Instead of having `Match` return failure messages, two new methods `FailureMessage` and `NegatedFailureMessage` are called instead.
|
||||
- Moved and renamed OmegaFailHandler to types.GomegaFailHandler and OmegaMatcher to types.GomegaMatcher. Any references to OmegaMatcher in any custom matchers will need to be changed to point to types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
|
||||
New Test-Support Features:
|
||||
|
||||
- `ghttp`: supports testing http clients
|
||||
- Provides a flexible fake http server
|
||||
- Provides a collection of chainable http handlers that perform assertions.
|
||||
- `gbytes`: supports making ordered assertions against streams of data
|
||||
- Provides a `gbytes.Buffer`
|
||||
- Provides a `Say` matcher to perform ordered assertions against output data
|
||||
- `gexec`: supports testing external processes
|
||||
- Provides support for building Go binaries
|
||||
- Wraps and starts `exec.Cmd` commands
|
||||
- Makes it easy to assert against stdout and stderr
|
||||
- Makes it easy to send signals and wait for processes to exit
|
||||
- Provides an `Exit` matcher to assert against exit code.
|
||||
|
||||
DSL Changes:
|
||||
|
||||
- `Eventually` and `Consistently` can accept `time.Duration` interval and polling inputs.
|
||||
- The default timeouts for `Eventually` and `Consistently` are now configurable.
|
||||
|
||||
New Matchers:
|
||||
|
||||
- `ConsistOf`: order-independent assertion against the elements of an array/slice or keys of a map.
|
||||
- `BeTemporally`: like `BeNumerically` but for `time.Time`
|
||||
- `HaveKeyWithValue`: asserts a map has a given key with the given value.
|
||||
|
||||
Updated Matchers:
|
||||
|
||||
- `Receive` matcher can take a matcher as an argument and passes only if the channel under test receives an objet that satisfies the passed-in matcher.
|
||||
- Matchers that implement `MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(actual interface{}) bool` can inform `Eventually` and/or `Consistently` when a match has no chance of changing status in the future. For example, `Receive` returns `false` when a channel is closed.
|
||||
|
||||
Misc:
|
||||
|
||||
- Start using semantic versioning
|
||||
- Start maintaining changelog
|
||||
|
||||
Major refactor:
|
||||
|
||||
- Pull out Gomega's internal to `internal`
|
14
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/CONTRIBUTING.md
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
# Contributing to Gomega
|
||||
|
||||
Your contributions to Gomega are essential for its long-term maintenance and improvement. To make a contribution:
|
||||
|
||||
- Please **open an issue first** - describe what problem you are trying to solve and give the community a forum for input and feedback ahead of investing time in writing code!
|
||||
- Ensure adequate test coverage:
|
||||
- Make sure to add appropriate unit tests
|
||||
- Please run all tests locally (`ginkgo -r -p`) and make sure they go green before submitting the PR
|
||||
- Please run following linter locally `go vet ./...` and make sure output does not contain any warnings
|
||||
- Update the documentation. In addition to standard `godoc` comments Gomega has extensive documentation on the `gh-pages` branch. If relevant, please submit a docs PR to that branch alongside your code PR.
|
||||
|
||||
If you're a committer, check out RELEASING.md to learn how to cut a release.
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for supporting Gomega!
|
20
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/LICENSE
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Onsi Fakhouri
|
||||
|
||||
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
|
||||
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
|
||||
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
|
||||
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
|
||||
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
|
||||
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
|
||||
the following conditions:
|
||||
|
||||
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
|
||||
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
|
||||
|
||||
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
|
||||
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
|
||||
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
|
||||
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
|
||||
LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
|
||||
OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
|
||||
WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
|
6
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/Makefile
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
|
||||
test:
|
||||
[ -z "`gofmt -s -w -l -e .`" ]
|
||||
go vet
|
||||
ginkgo -p -r --randomizeAllSpecs --failOnPending --randomizeSuites --race
|
||||
|
||||
.PHONY: test
|
21
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/README.md
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
![Gomega: Ginkgo's Preferred Matcher Library](http://onsi.github.io/gomega/images/gomega.png)
|
||||
|
||||
[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/onsi/gomega.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/onsi/gomega)
|
||||
|
||||
Jump straight to the [docs](http://onsi.github.io/gomega/) to learn about Gomega, including a list of [all available matchers](http://onsi.github.io/gomega/#provided-matchers).
|
||||
|
||||
If you have a question, comment, bug report, feature request, etc. please open a GitHub issue.
|
||||
|
||||
## [Ginkgo](http://github.com/onsi/ginkgo): a BDD Testing Framework for Golang
|
||||
|
||||
Learn more about Ginkgo [here](http://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/)
|
||||
|
||||
## Community Matchers
|
||||
|
||||
A collection of community matchers is available on the [wiki](https://github.com/onsi/gomega/wiki).
|
||||
|
||||
## License
|
||||
|
||||
Gomega is MIT-Licensed
|
||||
|
||||
The `ConsistOf` matcher uses [goraph](https://github.com/amitkgupta/goraph) which is embedded in the source to simplify distribution. goraph has an MIT license.
|
12
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/RELEASING.md
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
||||
A Gomega release is a tagged sha and a GitHub release. To cut a release:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Ensure CHANGELOG.md is up to date.
|
||||
- Use `git log --pretty=format:'- %s [%h]' HEAD...vX.X.X` to list all the commits since the last release
|
||||
- Categorize the changes into
|
||||
- Breaking Changes (requires a major version)
|
||||
- New Features (minor version)
|
||||
- Fixes (fix version)
|
||||
- Maintenance (which in general should not be mentioned in `CHANGELOG.md` as they have no user impact)
|
||||
2. Update GOMEGA_VERSION in `gomega_dsl.go`
|
||||
3. Push a commit with the version number as the commit message (e.g. `v1.3.0`)
|
||||
4. Create a new [GitHub release](https://help.github.com/articles/creating-releases/) with the version number as the tag (e.g. `v1.3.0`). List the key changes in the release notes.
|
382
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/format/format.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,382 @@
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Gomega's format package pretty-prints objects. It explores input objects recursively and generates formatted, indented output with type information.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
package format
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"strconv"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
"time"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
// Use MaxDepth to set the maximum recursion depth when printing deeply nested objects
|
||||
var MaxDepth = uint(10)
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
By default, all objects (even those that implement fmt.Stringer and fmt.GoStringer) are recursively inspected to generate output.
|
||||
|
||||
Set UseStringerRepresentation = true to use GoString (for fmt.GoStringers) or String (for fmt.Stringer) instead.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that GoString and String don't always have all the information you need to understand why a test failed!
|
||||
*/
|
||||
var UseStringerRepresentation = false
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Print the content of context objects. By default it will be suppressed.
|
||||
|
||||
Set PrintContextObjects = true to enable printing of the context internals.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
var PrintContextObjects = false
|
||||
|
||||
// TruncatedDiff choose if we should display a truncated pretty diff or not
|
||||
var TruncatedDiff = true
|
||||
|
||||
// Ctx interface defined here to keep backwards compatability with go < 1.7
|
||||
// It matches the context.Context interface
|
||||
type Ctx interface {
|
||||
Deadline() (deadline time.Time, ok bool)
|
||||
Done() <-chan struct{}
|
||||
Err() error
|
||||
Value(key interface{}) interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var contextType = reflect.TypeOf((*Ctx)(nil)).Elem()
|
||||
var timeType = reflect.TypeOf(time.Time{})
|
||||
|
||||
//The default indentation string emitted by the format package
|
||||
var Indent = " "
|
||||
|
||||
var longFormThreshold = 20
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Generates a formatted matcher success/failure message of the form:
|
||||
|
||||
Expected
|
||||
<pretty printed actual>
|
||||
<message>
|
||||
<pretty printed expected>
|
||||
|
||||
If expected is omited, then the message looks like:
|
||||
|
||||
Expected
|
||||
<pretty printed actual>
|
||||
<message>
|
||||
*/
|
||||
func Message(actual interface{}, message string, expected ...interface{}) string {
|
||||
if len(expected) == 0 {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\n%s", Object(actual, 1), message)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\n%s\n%s", Object(actual, 1), message, Object(expected[0], 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
||||
Generates a nicely formatted matcher success / failure message
|
||||
|
||||
Much like Message(...), but it attempts to pretty print diffs in strings
|
||||
|
||||
Expected
|
||||
<string>: "...aaaaabaaaaa..."
|
||||
to equal |
|
||||
<string>: "...aaaaazaaaaa..."
|
||||
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
func MessageWithDiff(actual, message, expected string) string {
|
||||
if TruncatedDiff && len(actual) >= truncateThreshold && len(expected) >= truncateThreshold {
|
||||
diffPoint := findFirstMismatch(actual, expected)
|
||||
formattedActual := truncateAndFormat(actual, diffPoint)
|
||||
formattedExpected := truncateAndFormat(expected, diffPoint)
|
||||
|
||||
spacesBeforeFormattedMismatch := findFirstMismatch(formattedActual, formattedExpected)
|
||||
|
||||
tabLength := 4
|
||||
spaceFromMessageToActual := tabLength + len("<string>: ") - len(message)
|
||||
padding := strings.Repeat(" ", spaceFromMessageToActual+spacesBeforeFormattedMismatch) + "|"
|
||||
return Message(formattedActual, message+padding, formattedExpected)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return Message(actual, message, expected)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func truncateAndFormat(str string, index int) string {
|
||||
leftPadding := `...`
|
||||
rightPadding := `...`
|
||||
|
||||
start := index - charactersAroundMismatchToInclude
|
||||
if start < 0 {
|
||||
start = 0
|
||||
leftPadding = ""
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// slice index must include the mis-matched character
|
||||
lengthOfMismatchedCharacter := 1
|
||||
end := index + charactersAroundMismatchToInclude + lengthOfMismatchedCharacter
|
||||
if end > len(str) {
|
||||
end = len(str)
|
||||
rightPadding = ""
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("\"%s\"", leftPadding+str[start:end]+rightPadding)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func findFirstMismatch(a, b string) int {
|
||||
aSlice := strings.Split(a, "")
|
||||
bSlice := strings.Split(b, "")
|
||||
|
||||
for index, str := range aSlice {
|
||||
if index > len(bSlice)-1 {
|
||||
return index
|
||||
}
|
||||
if str != bSlice[index] {
|
||||
return index
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if len(b) > len(a) {
|
||||
return len(a) + 1
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return 0
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const (
|
||||
truncateThreshold = 50
|
||||
charactersAroundMismatchToInclude = 5
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Pretty prints the passed in object at the passed in indentation level.
|
||||
|
||||
Object recurses into deeply nested objects emitting pretty-printed representations of their components.
|
||||
|
||||
Modify format.MaxDepth to control how deep the recursion is allowed to go
|
||||
Set format.UseStringerRepresentation to true to return object.GoString() or object.String() when available instead of
|
||||
recursing into the object.
|
||||
|
||||
Set PrintContextObjects to true to print the content of objects implementing context.Context
|
||||
*/
|
||||
func Object(object interface{}, indentation uint) string {
|
||||
indent := strings.Repeat(Indent, int(indentation))
|
||||
value := reflect.ValueOf(object)
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%s<%s>: %s", indent, formatType(object), formatValue(value, indentation))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
IndentString takes a string and indents each line by the specified amount.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
func IndentString(s string, indentation uint) string {
|
||||
components := strings.Split(s, "\n")
|
||||
result := ""
|
||||
indent := strings.Repeat(Indent, int(indentation))
|
||||
for i, component := range components {
|
||||
result += indent + component
|
||||
if i < len(components)-1 {
|
||||
result += "\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return result
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func formatType(object interface{}) string {
|
||||
t := reflect.TypeOf(object)
|
||||
if t == nil {
|
||||
return "nil"
|
||||
}
|
||||
switch t.Kind() {
|
||||
case reflect.Chan:
|
||||
v := reflect.ValueOf(object)
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%T | len:%d, cap:%d", object, v.Len(), v.Cap())
|
||||
case reflect.Ptr:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%T | %p", object, object)
|
||||
case reflect.Slice:
|
||||
v := reflect.ValueOf(object)
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%T | len:%d, cap:%d", object, v.Len(), v.Cap())
|
||||
case reflect.Map:
|
||||
v := reflect.ValueOf(object)
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%T | len:%d", object, v.Len())
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%T", object)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func formatValue(value reflect.Value, indentation uint) string {
|
||||
if indentation > MaxDepth {
|
||||
return "..."
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if isNilValue(value) {
|
||||
return "nil"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if UseStringerRepresentation {
|
||||
if value.CanInterface() {
|
||||
obj := value.Interface()
|
||||
switch x := obj.(type) {
|
||||
case fmt.GoStringer:
|
||||
return x.GoString()
|
||||
case fmt.Stringer:
|
||||
return x.String()
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !PrintContextObjects {
|
||||
if value.Type().Implements(contextType) && indentation > 1 {
|
||||
return "<suppressed context>"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch value.Kind() {
|
||||
case reflect.Bool:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%v", value.Bool())
|
||||
case reflect.Int, reflect.Int8, reflect.Int16, reflect.Int32, reflect.Int64:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%v", value.Int())
|
||||
case reflect.Uint, reflect.Uint8, reflect.Uint16, reflect.Uint32, reflect.Uint64:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%v", value.Uint())
|
||||
case reflect.Uintptr:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("0x%x", value.Uint())
|
||||
case reflect.Float32, reflect.Float64:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%v", value.Float())
|
||||
case reflect.Complex64, reflect.Complex128:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%v", value.Complex())
|
||||
case reflect.Chan:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("0x%x", value.Pointer())
|
||||
case reflect.Func:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("0x%x", value.Pointer())
|
||||
case reflect.Ptr:
|
||||
return formatValue(value.Elem(), indentation)
|
||||
case reflect.Slice:
|
||||
return formatSlice(value, indentation)
|
||||
case reflect.String:
|
||||
return formatString(value.String(), indentation)
|
||||
case reflect.Array:
|
||||
return formatSlice(value, indentation)
|
||||
case reflect.Map:
|
||||
return formatMap(value, indentation)
|
||||
case reflect.Struct:
|
||||
if value.Type() == timeType && value.CanInterface() {
|
||||
t, _ := value.Interface().(time.Time)
|
||||
return t.Format(time.RFC3339Nano)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return formatStruct(value, indentation)
|
||||
case reflect.Interface:
|
||||
return formatValue(value.Elem(), indentation)
|
||||
default:
|
||||
if value.CanInterface() {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%#v", value.Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%#v", value)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func formatString(object interface{}, indentation uint) string {
|
||||
if indentation == 1 {
|
||||
s := fmt.Sprintf("%s", object)
|
||||
components := strings.Split(s, "\n")
|
||||
result := ""
|
||||
for i, component := range components {
|
||||
if i == 0 {
|
||||
result += component
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
result += Indent + component
|
||||
}
|
||||
if i < len(components)-1 {
|
||||
result += "\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%s", result)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%q", object)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func formatSlice(v reflect.Value, indentation uint) string {
|
||||
if v.Kind() == reflect.Slice && v.Type().Elem().Kind() == reflect.Uint8 && isPrintableString(string(v.Bytes())) {
|
||||
return formatString(v.Bytes(), indentation)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
l := v.Len()
|
||||
result := make([]string, l)
|
||||
longest := 0
|
||||
for i := 0; i < l; i++ {
|
||||
result[i] = formatValue(v.Index(i), indentation+1)
|
||||
if len(result[i]) > longest {
|
||||
longest = len(result[i])
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if longest > longFormThreshold {
|
||||
indenter := strings.Repeat(Indent, int(indentation))
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("[\n%s%s,\n%s]", indenter+Indent, strings.Join(result, ",\n"+indenter+Indent), indenter)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("[%s]", strings.Join(result, ", "))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func formatMap(v reflect.Value, indentation uint) string {
|
||||
l := v.Len()
|
||||
result := make([]string, l)
|
||||
|
||||
longest := 0
|
||||
for i, key := range v.MapKeys() {
|
||||
value := v.MapIndex(key)
|
||||
result[i] = fmt.Sprintf("%s: %s", formatValue(key, indentation+1), formatValue(value, indentation+1))
|
||||
if len(result[i]) > longest {
|
||||
longest = len(result[i])
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if longest > longFormThreshold {
|
||||
indenter := strings.Repeat(Indent, int(indentation))
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("{\n%s%s,\n%s}", indenter+Indent, strings.Join(result, ",\n"+indenter+Indent), indenter)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("{%s}", strings.Join(result, ", "))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func formatStruct(v reflect.Value, indentation uint) string {
|
||||
t := v.Type()
|
||||
|
||||
l := v.NumField()
|
||||
result := []string{}
|
||||
longest := 0
|
||||
for i := 0; i < l; i++ {
|
||||
structField := t.Field(i)
|
||||
fieldEntry := v.Field(i)
|
||||
representation := fmt.Sprintf("%s: %s", structField.Name, formatValue(fieldEntry, indentation+1))
|
||||
result = append(result, representation)
|
||||
if len(representation) > longest {
|
||||
longest = len(representation)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
if longest > longFormThreshold {
|
||||
indenter := strings.Repeat(Indent, int(indentation))
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("{\n%s%s,\n%s}", indenter+Indent, strings.Join(result, ",\n"+indenter+Indent), indenter)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("{%s}", strings.Join(result, ", "))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isNilValue(a reflect.Value) bool {
|
||||
switch a.Kind() {
|
||||
case reflect.Invalid:
|
||||
return true
|
||||
case reflect.Chan, reflect.Func, reflect.Interface, reflect.Map, reflect.Ptr, reflect.Slice:
|
||||
return a.IsNil()
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Returns true when the string is entirely made of printable runes, false otherwise.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
func isPrintableString(str string) bool {
|
||||
for _, runeValue := range str {
|
||||
if !strconv.IsPrint(runeValue) {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
15
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/go.mod
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
module github.com/onsi/gomega
|
||||
|
||||
require (
|
||||
github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify v1.4.7 // indirect
|
||||
github.com/golang/protobuf v1.2.0
|
||||
github.com/hpcloud/tail v1.0.0 // indirect
|
||||
github.com/onsi/ginkgo v1.6.0
|
||||
golang.org/x/net v0.0.0-20180906233101-161cd47e91fd
|
||||
golang.org/x/sync v0.0.0-20180314180146-1d60e4601c6f // indirect
|
||||
golang.org/x/sys v0.0.0-20180909124046-d0be0721c37e // indirect
|
||||
golang.org/x/text v0.3.0 // indirect
|
||||
gopkg.in/fsnotify.v1 v1.4.7 // indirect
|
||||
gopkg.in/tomb.v1 v1.0.0-20141024135613-dd632973f1e7 // indirect
|
||||
gopkg.in/yaml.v2 v2.2.1
|
||||
)
|
24
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/go.sum
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify v1.4.7 h1:IXs+QLmnXW2CcXuY+8Mzv/fWEsPGWxqefPtCP5CnV9I=
|
||||
github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify v1.4.7/go.mod h1:jwhsz4b93w/PPRr/qN1Yymfu8t87LnFCMoQvtojpjFo=
|
||||
github.com/golang/protobuf v1.2.0 h1:P3YflyNX/ehuJFLhxviNdFxQPkGK5cDcApsge1SqnvM=
|
||||
github.com/golang/protobuf v1.2.0/go.mod h1:6lQm79b+lXiMfvg/cZm0SGofjICqVBUtrP5yJMmIC1U=
|
||||
github.com/hpcloud/tail v1.0.0 h1:nfCOvKYfkgYP8hkirhJocXT2+zOD8yUNjXaWfTlyFKI=
|
||||
github.com/hpcloud/tail v1.0.0/go.mod h1:ab1qPbhIpdTxEkNHXyeSf5vhxWSCs/tWer42PpOxQnU=
|
||||
github.com/onsi/ginkgo v1.6.0 h1:Ix8l273rp3QzYgXSR+c8d1fTG7UPgYkOSELPhiY/YGw=
|
||||
github.com/onsi/ginkgo v1.6.0/go.mod h1:lLunBs/Ym6LB5Z9jYTR76FiuTmxDTDusOGeTQH+WWjE=
|
||||
golang.org/x/net v0.0.0-20180906233101-161cd47e91fd h1:nTDtHvHSdCn1m6ITfMRqtOd/9+7a3s8RBNOZ3eYZzJA=
|
||||
golang.org/x/net v0.0.0-20180906233101-161cd47e91fd/go.mod h1:mL1N/T3taQHkDXs73rZJwtUhF3w3ftmwwsq0BUmARs4=
|
||||
golang.org/x/sync v0.0.0-20180314180146-1d60e4601c6f h1:wMNYb4v58l5UBM7MYRLPG6ZhfOqbKu7X5eyFl8ZhKvA=
|
||||
golang.org/x/sync v0.0.0-20180314180146-1d60e4601c6f/go.mod h1:RxMgew5VJxzue5/jJTE5uejpjVlOe/izrB70Jof72aM=
|
||||
golang.org/x/sys v0.0.0-20180909124046-d0be0721c37e h1:o3PsSEY8E4eXWkXrIP9YJALUkVZqzHJT5DOasTyn8Vs=
|
||||
golang.org/x/sys v0.0.0-20180909124046-d0be0721c37e/go.mod h1:STP8DvDyc/dI5b8T5hshtkjS+E42TnysNCUPdjciGhY=
|
||||
golang.org/x/text v0.3.0 h1:g61tztE5qeGQ89tm6NTjjM9VPIm088od1l6aSorWRWg=
|
||||
golang.org/x/text v0.3.0/go.mod h1:NqM8EUOU14njkJ3fqMW+pc6Ldnwhi/IjpwHt7yyuwOQ=
|
||||
gopkg.in/check.v1 v0.0.0-20161208181325-20d25e280405 h1:yhCVgyC4o1eVCa2tZl7eS0r+SDo693bJlVdllGtEeKM=
|
||||
gopkg.in/check.v1 v0.0.0-20161208181325-20d25e280405/go.mod h1:Co6ibVJAznAaIkqp8huTwlJQCZ016jof/cbN4VW5Yz0=
|
||||
gopkg.in/fsnotify.v1 v1.4.7 h1:xOHLXZwVvI9hhs+cLKq5+I5onOuwQLhQwiu63xxlHs4=
|
||||
gopkg.in/fsnotify.v1 v1.4.7/go.mod h1:Tz8NjZHkW78fSQdbUxIjBTcgA1z1m8ZHf0WmKUhAMys=
|
||||
gopkg.in/tomb.v1 v1.0.0-20141024135613-dd632973f1e7 h1:uRGJdciOHaEIrze2W8Q3AKkepLTh2hOroT7a+7czfdQ=
|
||||
gopkg.in/tomb.v1 v1.0.0-20141024135613-dd632973f1e7/go.mod h1:dt/ZhP58zS4L8KSrWDmTeBkI65Dw0HsyUHuEVlX15mw=
|
||||
gopkg.in/yaml.v2 v2.2.1 h1:mUhvW9EsL+naU5Q3cakzfE91YhliOondGd6ZrsDBHQE=
|
||||
gopkg.in/yaml.v2 v2.2.1/go.mod h1:hI93XBmqTisBFMUTm0b8Fm+jr3Dg1NNxqwp+5A1VGuI=
|
429
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/gomega_dsl.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,429 @@
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Gomega is the Ginkgo BDD-style testing framework's preferred matcher library.
|
||||
|
||||
The godoc documentation describes Gomega's API. More comprehensive documentation (with examples!) is available at http://onsi.github.io/gomega/
|
||||
|
||||
Gomega on Github: http://github.com/onsi/gomega
|
||||
|
||||
Learn more about Ginkgo online: http://onsi.github.io/ginkgo
|
||||
|
||||
Ginkgo on Github: http://github.com/onsi/ginkgo
|
||||
|
||||
Gomega is MIT-Licensed
|
||||
*/
|
||||
package gomega
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"time"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/assertion"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/asyncassertion"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/testingtsupport"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
const GOMEGA_VERSION = "1.4.3"
|
||||
|
||||
const nilFailHandlerPanic = `You are trying to make an assertion, but Gomega's fail handler is nil.
|
||||
If you're using Ginkgo then you probably forgot to put your assertion in an It().
|
||||
Alternatively, you may have forgotten to register a fail handler with RegisterFailHandler() or RegisterTestingT().
|
||||
Depending on your vendoring solution you may be inadvertently importing gomega and subpackages (e.g. ghhtp, gexec,...) from different locations.
|
||||
`
|
||||
|
||||
var globalFailWrapper *types.GomegaFailWrapper
|
||||
|
||||
var defaultEventuallyTimeout = time.Second
|
||||
var defaultEventuallyPollingInterval = 10 * time.Millisecond
|
||||
var defaultConsistentlyDuration = 100 * time.Millisecond
|
||||
var defaultConsistentlyPollingInterval = 10 * time.Millisecond
|
||||
|
||||
// RegisterFailHandler connects Ginkgo to Gomega. When a matcher fails
|
||||
// the fail handler passed into RegisterFailHandler is called.
|
||||
func RegisterFailHandler(handler types.GomegaFailHandler) {
|
||||
RegisterFailHandlerWithT(testingtsupport.EmptyTWithHelper{}, handler)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// RegisterFailHandlerWithT ensures that the given types.TWithHelper and fail handler
|
||||
// are used globally.
|
||||
func RegisterFailHandlerWithT(t types.TWithHelper, handler types.GomegaFailHandler) {
|
||||
if handler == nil {
|
||||
globalFailWrapper = nil
|
||||
return
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
globalFailWrapper = &types.GomegaFailWrapper{
|
||||
Fail: handler,
|
||||
TWithHelper: t,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// RegisterTestingT connects Gomega to Golang's XUnit style
|
||||
// Testing.T tests. It is now deprecated and you should use NewWithT() instead.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Legacy Documentation:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// You'll need to call this at the top of each XUnit style test:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// func TestFarmHasCow(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
// RegisterTestingT(t)
|
||||
//
|
||||
// f := farm.New([]string{"Cow", "Horse"})
|
||||
// Expect(f.HasCow()).To(BeTrue(), "Farm should have cow")
|
||||
// }
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Note that this *testing.T is registered *globally* by Gomega (this is why you don't have to
|
||||
// pass `t` down to the matcher itself). This means that you cannot run the XUnit style tests
|
||||
// in parallel as the global fail handler cannot point to more than one testing.T at a time.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// NewWithT() does not have this limitation
|
||||
//
|
||||
// (As an aside: Ginkgo gets around this limitation by running parallel tests in different *processes*).
|
||||
func RegisterTestingT(t types.GomegaTestingT) {
|
||||
tWithHelper, hasHelper := t.(types.TWithHelper)
|
||||
if !hasHelper {
|
||||
RegisterFailHandler(testingtsupport.BuildTestingTGomegaFailWrapper(t).Fail)
|
||||
return
|
||||
}
|
||||
RegisterFailHandlerWithT(tWithHelper, testingtsupport.BuildTestingTGomegaFailWrapper(t).Fail)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// InterceptGomegaFailures runs a given callback and returns an array of
|
||||
// failure messages generated by any Gomega assertions within the callback.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// This is accomplished by temporarily replacing the *global* fail handler
|
||||
// with a fail handler that simply annotates failures. The original fail handler
|
||||
// is reset when InterceptGomegaFailures returns.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// This is most useful when testing custom matchers, but can also be used to check
|
||||
// on a value using a Gomega assertion without causing a test failure.
|
||||
func InterceptGomegaFailures(f func()) []string {
|
||||
originalHandler := globalFailWrapper.Fail
|
||||
failures := []string{}
|
||||
RegisterFailHandler(func(message string, callerSkip ...int) {
|
||||
failures = append(failures, message)
|
||||
})
|
||||
f()
|
||||
RegisterFailHandler(originalHandler)
|
||||
return failures
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Ω wraps an actual value allowing assertions to be made on it:
|
||||
// Ω("foo").Should(Equal("foo"))
|
||||
//
|
||||
// If Ω is passed more than one argument it will pass the *first* argument to the matcher.
|
||||
// All subsequent arguments will be required to be nil/zero.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// This is convenient if you want to make an assertion on a method/function that returns
|
||||
// a value and an error - a common patter in Go.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// For example, given a function with signature:
|
||||
// func MyAmazingThing() (int, error)
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Then:
|
||||
// Ω(MyAmazingThing()).Should(Equal(3))
|
||||
// Will succeed only if `MyAmazingThing()` returns `(3, nil)`
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Ω and Expect are identical
|
||||
func Ω(actual interface{}, extra ...interface{}) Assertion {
|
||||
return ExpectWithOffset(0, actual, extra...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Expect wraps an actual value allowing assertions to be made on it:
|
||||
// Expect("foo").To(Equal("foo"))
|
||||
//
|
||||
// If Expect is passed more than one argument it will pass the *first* argument to the matcher.
|
||||
// All subsequent arguments will be required to be nil/zero.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// This is convenient if you want to make an assertion on a method/function that returns
|
||||
// a value and an error - a common patter in Go.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// For example, given a function with signature:
|
||||
// func MyAmazingThing() (int, error)
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Then:
|
||||
// Expect(MyAmazingThing()).Should(Equal(3))
|
||||
// Will succeed only if `MyAmazingThing()` returns `(3, nil)`
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Expect and Ω are identical
|
||||
func Expect(actual interface{}, extra ...interface{}) Assertion {
|
||||
return ExpectWithOffset(0, actual, extra...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ExpectWithOffset wraps an actual value allowing assertions to be made on it:
|
||||
// ExpectWithOffset(1, "foo").To(Equal("foo"))
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Unlike `Expect` and `Ω`, `ExpectWithOffset` takes an additional integer argument
|
||||
// this is used to modify the call-stack offset when computing line numbers.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// This is most useful in helper functions that make assertions. If you want Gomega's
|
||||
// error message to refer to the calling line in the test (as opposed to the line in the helper function)
|
||||
// set the first argument of `ExpectWithOffset` appropriately.
|
||||
func ExpectWithOffset(offset int, actual interface{}, extra ...interface{}) Assertion {
|
||||
if globalFailWrapper == nil {
|
||||
panic(nilFailHandlerPanic)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return assertion.New(actual, globalFailWrapper, offset, extra...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Eventually wraps an actual value allowing assertions to be made on it.
|
||||
// The assertion is tried periodically until it passes or a timeout occurs.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Both the timeout and polling interval are configurable as optional arguments:
|
||||
// The first optional argument is the timeout
|
||||
// The second optional argument is the polling interval
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Both intervals can either be specified as time.Duration, parsable duration strings or as floats/integers. In the
|
||||
// last case they are interpreted as seconds.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// If Eventually is passed an actual that is a function taking no arguments and returning at least one value,
|
||||
// then Eventually will call the function periodically and try the matcher against the function's first return value.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Example:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Eventually(func() int {
|
||||
// return thingImPolling.Count()
|
||||
// }).Should(BeNumerically(">=", 17))
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Note that this example could be rewritten:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Eventually(thingImPolling.Count).Should(BeNumerically(">=", 17))
|
||||
//
|
||||
// If the function returns more than one value, then Eventually will pass the first value to the matcher and
|
||||
// assert that all other values are nil/zero.
|
||||
// This allows you to pass Eventually a function that returns a value and an error - a common pattern in Go.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// For example, consider a method that returns a value and an error:
|
||||
// func FetchFromDB() (string, error)
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Then
|
||||
// Eventually(FetchFromDB).Should(Equal("hasselhoff"))
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Will pass only if the the returned error is nil and the returned string passes the matcher.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Eventually's default timeout is 1 second, and its default polling interval is 10ms
|
||||
func Eventually(actual interface{}, intervals ...interface{}) AsyncAssertion {
|
||||
return EventuallyWithOffset(0, actual, intervals...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// EventuallyWithOffset operates like Eventually but takes an additional
|
||||
// initial argument to indicate an offset in the call stack. This is useful when building helper
|
||||
// functions that contain matchers. To learn more, read about `ExpectWithOffset`.
|
||||
func EventuallyWithOffset(offset int, actual interface{}, intervals ...interface{}) AsyncAssertion {
|
||||
if globalFailWrapper == nil {
|
||||
panic(nilFailHandlerPanic)
|
||||
}
|
||||
timeoutInterval := defaultEventuallyTimeout
|
||||
pollingInterval := defaultEventuallyPollingInterval
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 0 {
|
||||
timeoutInterval = toDuration(intervals[0])
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 1 {
|
||||
pollingInterval = toDuration(intervals[1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
return asyncassertion.New(asyncassertion.AsyncAssertionTypeEventually, actual, globalFailWrapper, timeoutInterval, pollingInterval, offset)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Consistently wraps an actual value allowing assertions to be made on it.
|
||||
// The assertion is tried periodically and is required to pass for a period of time.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Both the total time and polling interval are configurable as optional arguments:
|
||||
// The first optional argument is the duration that Consistently will run for
|
||||
// The second optional argument is the polling interval
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Both intervals can either be specified as time.Duration, parsable duration strings or as floats/integers. In the
|
||||
// last case they are interpreted as seconds.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// If Consistently is passed an actual that is a function taking no arguments and returning at least one value,
|
||||
// then Consistently will call the function periodically and try the matcher against the function's first return value.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// If the function returns more than one value, then Consistently will pass the first value to the matcher and
|
||||
// assert that all other values are nil/zero.
|
||||
// This allows you to pass Consistently a function that returns a value and an error - a common pattern in Go.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Consistently is useful in cases where you want to assert that something *does not happen* over a period of tiem.
|
||||
// For example, you want to assert that a goroutine does *not* send data down a channel. In this case, you could:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Consistently(channel).ShouldNot(Receive())
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Consistently's default duration is 100ms, and its default polling interval is 10ms
|
||||
func Consistently(actual interface{}, intervals ...interface{}) AsyncAssertion {
|
||||
return ConsistentlyWithOffset(0, actual, intervals...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// ConsistentlyWithOffset operates like Consistnetly but takes an additional
|
||||
// initial argument to indicate an offset in the call stack. This is useful when building helper
|
||||
// functions that contain matchers. To learn more, read about `ExpectWithOffset`.
|
||||
func ConsistentlyWithOffset(offset int, actual interface{}, intervals ...interface{}) AsyncAssertion {
|
||||
if globalFailWrapper == nil {
|
||||
panic(nilFailHandlerPanic)
|
||||
}
|
||||
timeoutInterval := defaultConsistentlyDuration
|
||||
pollingInterval := defaultConsistentlyPollingInterval
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 0 {
|
||||
timeoutInterval = toDuration(intervals[0])
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 1 {
|
||||
pollingInterval = toDuration(intervals[1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
return asyncassertion.New(asyncassertion.AsyncAssertionTypeConsistently, actual, globalFailWrapper, timeoutInterval, pollingInterval, offset)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// SetDefaultEventuallyTimeout sets the default timeout duration for Eventually. Eventually will repeatedly poll your condition until it succeeds, or until this timeout elapses.
|
||||
func SetDefaultEventuallyTimeout(t time.Duration) {
|
||||
defaultEventuallyTimeout = t
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// SetDefaultEventuallyPollingInterval sets the default polling interval for Eventually.
|
||||
func SetDefaultEventuallyPollingInterval(t time.Duration) {
|
||||
defaultEventuallyPollingInterval = t
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// SetDefaultConsistentlyDuration sets the default duration for Consistently. Consistently will verify that your condition is satsified for this long.
|
||||
func SetDefaultConsistentlyDuration(t time.Duration) {
|
||||
defaultConsistentlyDuration = t
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// SetDefaultConsistentlyPollingInterval sets the default polling interval for Consistently.
|
||||
func SetDefaultConsistentlyPollingInterval(t time.Duration) {
|
||||
defaultConsistentlyPollingInterval = t
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// AsyncAssertion is returned by Eventually and Consistently and polls the actual value passed into Eventually against
|
||||
// the matcher passed to the Should and ShouldNot methods.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Both Should and ShouldNot take a variadic optionalDescription argument. This is passed on to
|
||||
// fmt.Sprintf() and is used to annotate failure messages. This allows you to make your failure messages more
|
||||
// descriptive.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Both Should and ShouldNot return a boolean that is true if the assertion passed and false if it failed.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Example:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Eventually(myChannel).Should(Receive(), "Something should have come down the pipe.")
|
||||
// Consistently(myChannel).ShouldNot(Receive(), "Nothing should have come down the pipe.")
|
||||
type AsyncAssertion interface {
|
||||
Should(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool
|
||||
ShouldNot(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// GomegaAsyncAssertion is deprecated in favor of AsyncAssertion, which does not stutter.
|
||||
type GomegaAsyncAssertion = AsyncAssertion
|
||||
|
||||
// Assertion is returned by Ω and Expect and compares the actual value to the matcher
|
||||
// passed to the Should/ShouldNot and To/ToNot/NotTo methods.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Typically Should/ShouldNot are used with Ω and To/ToNot/NotTo are used with Expect
|
||||
// though this is not enforced.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// All methods take a variadic optionalDescription argument. This is passed on to fmt.Sprintf()
|
||||
// and is used to annotate failure messages.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// All methods return a bool that is true if hte assertion passed and false if it failed.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Example:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Ω(farm.HasCow()).Should(BeTrue(), "Farm %v should have a cow", farm)
|
||||
type Assertion interface {
|
||||
Should(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool
|
||||
ShouldNot(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool
|
||||
|
||||
To(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool
|
||||
ToNot(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool
|
||||
NotTo(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// GomegaAssertion is deprecated in favor of Assertion, which does not stutter.
|
||||
type GomegaAssertion = Assertion
|
||||
|
||||
// OmegaMatcher is deprecated in favor of the better-named and better-organized types.GomegaMatcher but sticks around to support existing code that uses it
|
||||
type OmegaMatcher types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
|
||||
// WithT wraps a *testing.T and provides `Expect`, `Eventually`, and `Consistently` methods. This allows you to leverage
|
||||
// Gomega's rich ecosystem of matchers in standard `testing` test suites.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Use `NewWithT` to instantiate a `WithT`
|
||||
type WithT struct {
|
||||
t types.GomegaTestingT
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// GomegaWithT is deprecated in favor of gomega.WithT, which does not stutter.
|
||||
type GomegaWithT = WithT
|
||||
|
||||
// NewWithT takes a *testing.T and returngs a `gomega.WithT` allowing you to use `Expect`, `Eventually`, and `Consistently` along with
|
||||
// Gomega's rich ecosystem of matchers in standard `testing` test suits.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// func TestFarmHasCow(t *testing.T) {
|
||||
// g := gomega.NewWithT(t)
|
||||
//
|
||||
// f := farm.New([]string{"Cow", "Horse"})
|
||||
// g.Expect(f.HasCow()).To(BeTrue(), "Farm should have cow")
|
||||
// }
|
||||
func NewWithT(t types.GomegaTestingT) *WithT {
|
||||
return &WithT{
|
||||
t: t,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// NewGomegaWithT is deprecated in favor of gomega.NewWithT, which does not stutter.
|
||||
func NewGomegaWithT(t types.GomegaTestingT) *GomegaWithT {
|
||||
return NewWithT(t)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Expect is used to make assertions. See documentation for Expect.
|
||||
func (g *WithT) Expect(actual interface{}, extra ...interface{}) Assertion {
|
||||
return assertion.New(actual, testingtsupport.BuildTestingTGomegaFailWrapper(g.t), 0, extra...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Eventually is used to make asynchronous assertions. See documentation for Eventually.
|
||||
func (g *WithT) Eventually(actual interface{}, intervals ...interface{}) AsyncAssertion {
|
||||
timeoutInterval := defaultEventuallyTimeout
|
||||
pollingInterval := defaultEventuallyPollingInterval
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 0 {
|
||||
timeoutInterval = toDuration(intervals[0])
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 1 {
|
||||
pollingInterval = toDuration(intervals[1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
return asyncassertion.New(asyncassertion.AsyncAssertionTypeEventually, actual, testingtsupport.BuildTestingTGomegaFailWrapper(g.t), timeoutInterval, pollingInterval, 0)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Consistently is used to make asynchronous assertions. See documentation for Consistently.
|
||||
func (g *WithT) Consistently(actual interface{}, intervals ...interface{}) AsyncAssertion {
|
||||
timeoutInterval := defaultConsistentlyDuration
|
||||
pollingInterval := defaultConsistentlyPollingInterval
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 0 {
|
||||
timeoutInterval = toDuration(intervals[0])
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(intervals) > 1 {
|
||||
pollingInterval = toDuration(intervals[1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
return asyncassertion.New(asyncassertion.AsyncAssertionTypeConsistently, actual, testingtsupport.BuildTestingTGomegaFailWrapper(g.t), timeoutInterval, pollingInterval, 0)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func toDuration(input interface{}) time.Duration {
|
||||
duration, ok := input.(time.Duration)
|
||||
if ok {
|
||||
return duration
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
value := reflect.ValueOf(input)
|
||||
kind := reflect.TypeOf(input).Kind()
|
||||
|
||||
if reflect.Int <= kind && kind <= reflect.Int64 {
|
||||
return time.Duration(value.Int()) * time.Second
|
||||
} else if reflect.Uint <= kind && kind <= reflect.Uint64 {
|
||||
return time.Duration(value.Uint()) * time.Second
|
||||
} else if reflect.Float32 <= kind && kind <= reflect.Float64 {
|
||||
return time.Duration(value.Float() * float64(time.Second))
|
||||
} else if reflect.String == kind {
|
||||
duration, err := time.ParseDuration(value.String())
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
panic(fmt.Sprintf("%#v is not a valid parsable duration string.", input))
|
||||
}
|
||||
return duration
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
panic(fmt.Sprintf("%v is not a valid interval. Must be time.Duration, parsable duration string or a number.", input))
|
||||
}
|
105
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/assertion/assertion.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
|
||||
package assertion
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type Assertion struct {
|
||||
actualInput interface{}
|
||||
failWrapper *types.GomegaFailWrapper
|
||||
offset int
|
||||
extra []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func New(actualInput interface{}, failWrapper *types.GomegaFailWrapper, offset int, extra ...interface{}) *Assertion {
|
||||
return &Assertion{
|
||||
actualInput: actualInput,
|
||||
failWrapper: failWrapper,
|
||||
offset: offset,
|
||||
extra: extra,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) Should(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
return assertion.vetExtras(optionalDescription...) && assertion.match(matcher, true, optionalDescription...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) ShouldNot(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
return assertion.vetExtras(optionalDescription...) && assertion.match(matcher, false, optionalDescription...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) To(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
return assertion.vetExtras(optionalDescription...) && assertion.match(matcher, true, optionalDescription...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) ToNot(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
return assertion.vetExtras(optionalDescription...) && assertion.match(matcher, false, optionalDescription...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) NotTo(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
return assertion.vetExtras(optionalDescription...) && assertion.match(matcher, false, optionalDescription...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) buildDescription(optionalDescription ...interface{}) string {
|
||||
switch len(optionalDescription) {
|
||||
case 0:
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf(optionalDescription[0].(string), optionalDescription[1:]...) + "\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) match(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, desiredMatch bool, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
matches, err := matcher.Match(assertion.actualInput)
|
||||
description := assertion.buildDescription(optionalDescription...)
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.Fail(description+err.Error(), 2+assertion.offset)
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
if matches != desiredMatch {
|
||||
var message string
|
||||
if desiredMatch {
|
||||
message = matcher.FailureMessage(assertion.actualInput)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
message = matcher.NegatedFailureMessage(assertion.actualInput)
|
||||
}
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.Fail(description+message, 2+assertion.offset)
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *Assertion) vetExtras(optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
success, message := vetExtras(assertion.extra)
|
||||
if success {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
description := assertion.buildDescription(optionalDescription...)
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.Fail(description+message, 2+assertion.offset)
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func vetExtras(extras []interface{}) (bool, string) {
|
||||
for i, extra := range extras {
|
||||
if extra != nil {
|
||||
zeroValue := reflect.Zero(reflect.TypeOf(extra)).Interface()
|
||||
if !reflect.DeepEqual(zeroValue, extra) {
|
||||
message := fmt.Sprintf("Unexpected non-nil/non-zero extra argument at index %d:\n\t<%T>: %#v", i+1, extra, extra)
|
||||
return false, message
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, ""
|
||||
}
|
194
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/asyncassertion/async_assertion.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
|
||||
package asyncassertion
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"errors"
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"time"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/oraclematcher"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type AsyncAssertionType uint
|
||||
|
||||
const (
|
||||
AsyncAssertionTypeEventually AsyncAssertionType = iota
|
||||
AsyncAssertionTypeConsistently
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type AsyncAssertion struct {
|
||||
asyncType AsyncAssertionType
|
||||
actualInput interface{}
|
||||
timeoutInterval time.Duration
|
||||
pollingInterval time.Duration
|
||||
failWrapper *types.GomegaFailWrapper
|
||||
offset int
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func New(asyncType AsyncAssertionType, actualInput interface{}, failWrapper *types.GomegaFailWrapper, timeoutInterval time.Duration, pollingInterval time.Duration, offset int) *AsyncAssertion {
|
||||
actualType := reflect.TypeOf(actualInput)
|
||||
if actualType.Kind() == reflect.Func {
|
||||
if actualType.NumIn() != 0 || actualType.NumOut() == 0 {
|
||||
panic("Expected a function with no arguments and one or more return values.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return &AsyncAssertion{
|
||||
asyncType: asyncType,
|
||||
actualInput: actualInput,
|
||||
failWrapper: failWrapper,
|
||||
timeoutInterval: timeoutInterval,
|
||||
pollingInterval: pollingInterval,
|
||||
offset: offset,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *AsyncAssertion) Should(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
return assertion.match(matcher, true, optionalDescription...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *AsyncAssertion) ShouldNot(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
return assertion.match(matcher, false, optionalDescription...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *AsyncAssertion) buildDescription(optionalDescription ...interface{}) string {
|
||||
switch len(optionalDescription) {
|
||||
case 0:
|
||||
return ""
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf(optionalDescription[0].(string), optionalDescription[1:]...) + "\n"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *AsyncAssertion) actualInputIsAFunction() bool {
|
||||
actualType := reflect.TypeOf(assertion.actualInput)
|
||||
return actualType.Kind() == reflect.Func && actualType.NumIn() == 0 && actualType.NumOut() > 0
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *AsyncAssertion) pollActual() (interface{}, error) {
|
||||
if assertion.actualInputIsAFunction() {
|
||||
values := reflect.ValueOf(assertion.actualInput).Call([]reflect.Value{})
|
||||
|
||||
extras := []interface{}{}
|
||||
for _, value := range values[1:] {
|
||||
extras = append(extras, value.Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
success, message := vetExtras(extras)
|
||||
|
||||
if !success {
|
||||
return nil, errors.New(message)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return values[0].Interface(), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return assertion.actualInput, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *AsyncAssertion) matcherMayChange(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, value interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if assertion.actualInputIsAFunction() {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return oraclematcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(matcher, value)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (assertion *AsyncAssertion) match(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, desiredMatch bool, optionalDescription ...interface{}) bool {
|
||||
timer := time.Now()
|
||||
timeout := time.After(assertion.timeoutInterval)
|
||||
|
||||
description := assertion.buildDescription(optionalDescription...)
|
||||
|
||||
var matches bool
|
||||
var err error
|
||||
mayChange := true
|
||||
value, err := assertion.pollActual()
|
||||
if err == nil {
|
||||
mayChange = assertion.matcherMayChange(matcher, value)
|
||||
matches, err = matcher.Match(value)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
|
||||
fail := func(preamble string) {
|
||||
errMsg := ""
|
||||
message := ""
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
errMsg = "Error: " + err.Error()
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
if desiredMatch {
|
||||
message = matcher.FailureMessage(value)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
message = matcher.NegatedFailureMessage(value)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.TWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
assertion.failWrapper.Fail(fmt.Sprintf("%s after %.3fs.\n%s%s%s", preamble, time.Since(timer).Seconds(), description, message, errMsg), 3+assertion.offset)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if assertion.asyncType == AsyncAssertionTypeEventually {
|
||||
for {
|
||||
if err == nil && matches == desiredMatch {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !mayChange {
|
||||
fail("No future change is possible. Bailing out early")
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
select {
|
||||
case <-time.After(assertion.pollingInterval):
|
||||
value, err = assertion.pollActual()
|
||||
if err == nil {
|
||||
mayChange = assertion.matcherMayChange(matcher, value)
|
||||
matches, err = matcher.Match(value)
|
||||
}
|
||||
case <-timeout:
|
||||
fail("Timed out")
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
} else if assertion.asyncType == AsyncAssertionTypeConsistently {
|
||||
for {
|
||||
if !(err == nil && matches == desiredMatch) {
|
||||
fail("Failed")
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !mayChange {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
select {
|
||||
case <-time.After(assertion.pollingInterval):
|
||||
value, err = assertion.pollActual()
|
||||
if err == nil {
|
||||
mayChange = assertion.matcherMayChange(matcher, value)
|
||||
matches, err = matcher.Match(value)
|
||||
}
|
||||
case <-timeout:
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func vetExtras(extras []interface{}) (bool, string) {
|
||||
for i, extra := range extras {
|
||||
if extra != nil {
|
||||
zeroValue := reflect.Zero(reflect.TypeOf(extra)).Interface()
|
||||
if !reflect.DeepEqual(zeroValue, extra) {
|
||||
message := fmt.Sprintf("Unexpected non-nil/non-zero extra argument at index %d:\n\t<%T>: %#v", i+1, extra, extra)
|
||||
return false, message
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, ""
|
||||
}
|
25
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/oraclematcher/oracle_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
package oraclematcher
|
||||
|
||||
import "github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
GomegaMatchers that also match the OracleMatcher interface can convey information about
|
||||
whether or not their result will change upon future attempts.
|
||||
|
||||
This allows `Eventually` and `Consistently` to short circuit if success becomes impossible.
|
||||
|
||||
For example, a process' exit code can never change. So, gexec's Exit matcher returns `true`
|
||||
for `MatchMayChangeInTheFuture` until the process exits, at which point it returns `false` forevermore.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
type OracleMatcher interface {
|
||||
MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(actual interface{}) bool
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(matcher types.GomegaMatcher, value interface{}) bool {
|
||||
oracleMatcher, ok := matcher.(OracleMatcher)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return oracleMatcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(value)
|
||||
}
|
60
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/testingtsupport/testing_t_support.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
package testingtsupport
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"regexp"
|
||||
"runtime/debug"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
var StackTracePruneRE = regexp.MustCompile(`\/gomega\/|\/ginkgo\/|\/pkg\/testing\/|\/pkg\/runtime\/`)
|
||||
|
||||
type EmptyTWithHelper struct{}
|
||||
|
||||
func (e EmptyTWithHelper) Helper() {}
|
||||
|
||||
type gomegaTestingT interface {
|
||||
Fatalf(format string, args ...interface{})
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func BuildTestingTGomegaFailWrapper(t gomegaTestingT) *types.GomegaFailWrapper {
|
||||
tWithHelper, hasHelper := t.(types.TWithHelper)
|
||||
if !hasHelper {
|
||||
tWithHelper = EmptyTWithHelper{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
fail := func(message string, callerSkip ...int) {
|
||||
if hasHelper {
|
||||
tWithHelper.Helper()
|
||||
t.Fatalf("\n%s", message)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
skip := 2
|
||||
if len(callerSkip) > 0 {
|
||||
skip += callerSkip[0]
|
||||
}
|
||||
stackTrace := pruneStack(string(debug.Stack()), skip)
|
||||
t.Fatalf("\n%s\n%s\n", stackTrace, message)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return &types.GomegaFailWrapper{
|
||||
Fail: fail,
|
||||
TWithHelper: tWithHelper,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func pruneStack(fullStackTrace string, skip int) string {
|
||||
stack := strings.Split(fullStackTrace, "\n")[1:]
|
||||
if len(stack) > 2*skip {
|
||||
stack = stack[2*skip:]
|
||||
}
|
||||
prunedStack := []string{}
|
||||
for i := 0; i < len(stack)/2; i++ {
|
||||
if !StackTracePruneRE.Match([]byte(stack[i*2])) {
|
||||
prunedStack = append(prunedStack, stack[i*2])
|
||||
prunedStack = append(prunedStack, stack[i*2+1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return strings.Join(prunedStack, "\n")
|
||||
}
|
427
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,427 @@
|
||||
package gomega
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"time"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
//Equal uses reflect.DeepEqual to compare actual with expected. Equal is strict about
|
||||
//types when performing comparisons.
|
||||
//It is an error for both actual and expected to be nil. Use BeNil() instead.
|
||||
func Equal(expected interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.EqualMatcher{
|
||||
Expected: expected,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeEquivalentTo is more lax than Equal, allowing equality between different types.
|
||||
//This is done by converting actual to have the type of expected before
|
||||
//attempting equality with reflect.DeepEqual.
|
||||
//It is an error for actual and expected to be nil. Use BeNil() instead.
|
||||
func BeEquivalentTo(expected interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeEquivalentToMatcher{
|
||||
Expected: expected,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeIdenticalTo uses the == operator to compare actual with expected.
|
||||
//BeIdenticalTo is strict about types when performing comparisons.
|
||||
//It is an error for both actual and expected to be nil. Use BeNil() instead.
|
||||
func BeIdenticalTo(expected interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeIdenticalToMatcher{
|
||||
Expected: expected,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeNil succeeds if actual is nil
|
||||
func BeNil() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeNilMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeTrue succeeds if actual is true
|
||||
func BeTrue() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeTrueMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeFalse succeeds if actual is false
|
||||
func BeFalse() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeFalseMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//HaveOccurred succeeds if actual is a non-nil error
|
||||
//The typical Go error checking pattern looks like:
|
||||
// err := SomethingThatMightFail()
|
||||
// Expect(err).ShouldNot(HaveOccurred())
|
||||
func HaveOccurred() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.HaveOccurredMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//Succeed passes if actual is a nil error
|
||||
//Succeed is intended to be used with functions that return a single error value. Instead of
|
||||
// err := SomethingThatMightFail()
|
||||
// Expect(err).ShouldNot(HaveOccurred())
|
||||
//
|
||||
//You can write:
|
||||
// Expect(SomethingThatMightFail()).Should(Succeed())
|
||||
//
|
||||
//It is a mistake to use Succeed with a function that has multiple return values. Gomega's Ω and Expect
|
||||
//functions automatically trigger failure if any return values after the first return value are non-zero/non-nil.
|
||||
//This means that Ω(MultiReturnFunc()).ShouldNot(Succeed()) can never pass.
|
||||
func Succeed() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.SucceedMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//MatchError succeeds if actual is a non-nil error that matches the passed in string/error.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//These are valid use-cases:
|
||||
// Expect(err).Should(MatchError("an error")) //asserts that err.Error() == "an error"
|
||||
// Expect(err).Should(MatchError(SomeError)) //asserts that err == SomeError (via reflect.DeepEqual)
|
||||
//
|
||||
//It is an error for err to be nil or an object that does not implement the Error interface
|
||||
func MatchError(expected interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.MatchErrorMatcher{
|
||||
Expected: expected,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeClosed succeeds if actual is a closed channel.
|
||||
//It is an error to pass a non-channel to BeClosed, it is also an error to pass nil
|
||||
//
|
||||
//In order to check whether or not the channel is closed, Gomega must try to read from the channel
|
||||
//(even in the `ShouldNot(BeClosed())` case). You should keep this in mind if you wish to make subsequent assertions about
|
||||
//values coming down the channel.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Also, if you are testing that a *buffered* channel is closed you must first read all values out of the channel before
|
||||
//asserting that it is closed (it is not possible to detect that a buffered-channel has been closed until all its buffered values are read).
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Finally, as a corollary: it is an error to check whether or not a send-only channel is closed.
|
||||
func BeClosed() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeClosedMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//Receive succeeds if there is a value to be received on actual.
|
||||
//Actual must be a channel (and cannot be a send-only channel) -- anything else is an error.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Receive returns immediately and never blocks:
|
||||
//
|
||||
//- If there is nothing on the channel `c` then Expect(c).Should(Receive()) will fail and Ω(c).ShouldNot(Receive()) will pass.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//- If the channel `c` is closed then Expect(c).Should(Receive()) will fail and Ω(c).ShouldNot(Receive()) will pass.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//- If there is something on the channel `c` ready to be read, then Expect(c).Should(Receive()) will pass and Ω(c).ShouldNot(Receive()) will fail.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//If you have a go-routine running in the background that will write to channel `c` you can:
|
||||
// Eventually(c).Should(Receive())
|
||||
//
|
||||
//This will timeout if nothing gets sent to `c` (you can modify the timeout interval as you normally do with `Eventually`)
|
||||
//
|
||||
//A similar use-case is to assert that no go-routine writes to a channel (for a period of time). You can do this with `Consistently`:
|
||||
// Consistently(c).ShouldNot(Receive())
|
||||
//
|
||||
//You can pass `Receive` a matcher. If you do so, it will match the received object against the matcher. For example:
|
||||
// Expect(c).Should(Receive(Equal("foo")))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//When given a matcher, `Receive` will always fail if there is nothing to be received on the channel.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Passing Receive a matcher is especially useful when paired with Eventually:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Eventually(c).Should(Receive(ContainSubstring("bar")))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//will repeatedly attempt to pull values out of `c` until a value matching "bar" is received.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Finally, if you want to have a reference to the value *sent* to the channel you can pass the `Receive` matcher a pointer to a variable of the appropriate type:
|
||||
// var myThing thing
|
||||
// Eventually(thingChan).Should(Receive(&myThing))
|
||||
// Expect(myThing.Sprocket).Should(Equal("foo"))
|
||||
// Expect(myThing.IsValid()).Should(BeTrue())
|
||||
func Receive(args ...interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
var arg interface{}
|
||||
if len(args) > 0 {
|
||||
arg = args[0]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return &matchers.ReceiveMatcher{
|
||||
Arg: arg,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeSent succeeds if a value can be sent to actual.
|
||||
//Actual must be a channel (and cannot be a receive-only channel) that can sent the type of the value passed into BeSent -- anything else is an error.
|
||||
//In addition, actual must not be closed.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//BeSent never blocks:
|
||||
//
|
||||
//- If the channel `c` is not ready to receive then Expect(c).Should(BeSent("foo")) will fail immediately
|
||||
//- If the channel `c` is eventually ready to receive then Eventually(c).Should(BeSent("foo")) will succeed.. presuming the channel becomes ready to receive before Eventually's timeout
|
||||
//- If the channel `c` is closed then Expect(c).Should(BeSent("foo")) and Ω(c).ShouldNot(BeSent("foo")) will both fail immediately
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Of course, the value is actually sent to the channel. The point of `BeSent` is less to make an assertion about the availability of the channel (which is typically an implementation detail that your test should not be concerned with).
|
||||
//Rather, the point of `BeSent` is to make it possible to easily and expressively write tests that can timeout on blocked channel sends.
|
||||
func BeSent(arg interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeSentMatcher{
|
||||
Arg: arg,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//MatchRegexp succeeds if actual is a string or stringer that matches the
|
||||
//passed-in regexp. Optional arguments can be provided to construct a regexp
|
||||
//via fmt.Sprintf().
|
||||
func MatchRegexp(regexp string, args ...interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.MatchRegexpMatcher{
|
||||
Regexp: regexp,
|
||||
Args: args,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//ContainSubstring succeeds if actual is a string or stringer that contains the
|
||||
//passed-in substring. Optional arguments can be provided to construct the substring
|
||||
//via fmt.Sprintf().
|
||||
func ContainSubstring(substr string, args ...interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.ContainSubstringMatcher{
|
||||
Substr: substr,
|
||||
Args: args,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//HavePrefix succeeds if actual is a string or stringer that contains the
|
||||
//passed-in string as a prefix. Optional arguments can be provided to construct
|
||||
//via fmt.Sprintf().
|
||||
func HavePrefix(prefix string, args ...interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.HavePrefixMatcher{
|
||||
Prefix: prefix,
|
||||
Args: args,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//HaveSuffix succeeds if actual is a string or stringer that contains the
|
||||
//passed-in string as a suffix. Optional arguments can be provided to construct
|
||||
//via fmt.Sprintf().
|
||||
func HaveSuffix(suffix string, args ...interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.HaveSuffixMatcher{
|
||||
Suffix: suffix,
|
||||
Args: args,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//MatchJSON succeeds if actual is a string or stringer of JSON that matches
|
||||
//the expected JSON. The JSONs are decoded and the resulting objects are compared via
|
||||
//reflect.DeepEqual so things like key-ordering and whitespace shouldn't matter.
|
||||
func MatchJSON(json interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.MatchJSONMatcher{
|
||||
JSONToMatch: json,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//MatchXML succeeds if actual is a string or stringer of XML that matches
|
||||
//the expected XML. The XMLs are decoded and the resulting objects are compared via
|
||||
//reflect.DeepEqual so things like whitespaces shouldn't matter.
|
||||
func MatchXML(xml interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.MatchXMLMatcher{
|
||||
XMLToMatch: xml,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//MatchYAML succeeds if actual is a string or stringer of YAML that matches
|
||||
//the expected YAML. The YAML's are decoded and the resulting objects are compared via
|
||||
//reflect.DeepEqual so things like key-ordering and whitespace shouldn't matter.
|
||||
func MatchYAML(yaml interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.MatchYAMLMatcher{
|
||||
YAMLToMatch: yaml,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeEmpty succeeds if actual is empty. Actual must be of type string, array, map, chan, or slice.
|
||||
func BeEmpty() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeEmptyMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//HaveLen succeeds if actual has the passed-in length. Actual must be of type string, array, map, chan, or slice.
|
||||
func HaveLen(count int) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.HaveLenMatcher{
|
||||
Count: count,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//HaveCap succeeds if actual has the passed-in capacity. Actual must be of type array, chan, or slice.
|
||||
func HaveCap(count int) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.HaveCapMatcher{
|
||||
Count: count,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeZero succeeds if actual is the zero value for its type or if actual is nil.
|
||||
func BeZero() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeZeroMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//ContainElement succeeds if actual contains the passed in element.
|
||||
//By default ContainElement() uses Equal() to perform the match, however a
|
||||
//matcher can be passed in instead:
|
||||
// Expect([]string{"Foo", "FooBar"}).Should(ContainElement(ContainSubstring("Bar")))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Actual must be an array, slice or map.
|
||||
//For maps, ContainElement searches through the map's values.
|
||||
func ContainElement(element interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.ContainElementMatcher{
|
||||
Element: element,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//ConsistOf succeeds if actual contains precisely the elements passed into the matcher. The ordering of the elements does not matter.
|
||||
//By default ConsistOf() uses Equal() to match the elements, however custom matchers can be passed in instead. Here are some examples:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Expect([]string{"Foo", "FooBar"}).Should(ConsistOf("FooBar", "Foo"))
|
||||
// Expect([]string{"Foo", "FooBar"}).Should(ConsistOf(ContainSubstring("Bar"), "Foo"))
|
||||
// Expect([]string{"Foo", "FooBar"}).Should(ConsistOf(ContainSubstring("Foo"), ContainSubstring("Foo")))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Actual must be an array, slice or map. For maps, ConsistOf matches against the map's values.
|
||||
//
|
||||
//You typically pass variadic arguments to ConsistOf (as in the examples above). However, if you need to pass in a slice you can provided that it
|
||||
//is the only element passed in to ConsistOf:
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Expect([]string{"Foo", "FooBar"}).Should(ConsistOf([]string{"FooBar", "Foo"}))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//Note that Go's type system does not allow you to write this as ConsistOf([]string{"FooBar", "Foo"}...) as []string and []interface{} are different types - hence the need for this special rule.
|
||||
func ConsistOf(elements ...interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.ConsistOfMatcher{
|
||||
Elements: elements,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//HaveKey succeeds if actual is a map with the passed in key.
|
||||
//By default HaveKey uses Equal() to perform the match, however a
|
||||
//matcher can be passed in instead:
|
||||
// Expect(map[string]string{"Foo": "Bar", "BazFoo": "Duck"}).Should(HaveKey(MatchRegexp(`.+Foo$`)))
|
||||
func HaveKey(key interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.HaveKeyMatcher{
|
||||
Key: key,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//HaveKeyWithValue succeeds if actual is a map with the passed in key and value.
|
||||
//By default HaveKeyWithValue uses Equal() to perform the match, however a
|
||||
//matcher can be passed in instead:
|
||||
// Expect(map[string]string{"Foo": "Bar", "BazFoo": "Duck"}).Should(HaveKeyWithValue("Foo", "Bar"))
|
||||
// Expect(map[string]string{"Foo": "Bar", "BazFoo": "Duck"}).Should(HaveKeyWithValue(MatchRegexp(`.+Foo$`), "Bar"))
|
||||
func HaveKeyWithValue(key interface{}, value interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.HaveKeyWithValueMatcher{
|
||||
Key: key,
|
||||
Value: value,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeNumerically performs numerical assertions in a type-agnostic way.
|
||||
//Actual and expected should be numbers, though the specific type of
|
||||
//number is irrelevant (float32, float64, uint8, etc...).
|
||||
//
|
||||
//There are six, self-explanatory, supported comparators:
|
||||
// Expect(1.0).Should(BeNumerically("==", 1))
|
||||
// Expect(1.0).Should(BeNumerically("~", 0.999, 0.01))
|
||||
// Expect(1.0).Should(BeNumerically(">", 0.9))
|
||||
// Expect(1.0).Should(BeNumerically(">=", 1.0))
|
||||
// Expect(1.0).Should(BeNumerically("<", 3))
|
||||
// Expect(1.0).Should(BeNumerically("<=", 1.0))
|
||||
func BeNumerically(comparator string, compareTo ...interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeNumericallyMatcher{
|
||||
Comparator: comparator,
|
||||
CompareTo: compareTo,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeTemporally compares time.Time's like BeNumerically
|
||||
//Actual and expected must be time.Time. The comparators are the same as for BeNumerically
|
||||
// Expect(time.Now()).Should(BeTemporally(">", time.Time{}))
|
||||
// Expect(time.Now()).Should(BeTemporally("~", time.Now(), time.Second))
|
||||
func BeTemporally(comparator string, compareTo time.Time, threshold ...time.Duration) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeTemporallyMatcher{
|
||||
Comparator: comparator,
|
||||
CompareTo: compareTo,
|
||||
Threshold: threshold,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeAssignableToTypeOf succeeds if actual is assignable to the type of expected.
|
||||
//It will return an error when one of the values is nil.
|
||||
// Expect(0).Should(BeAssignableToTypeOf(0)) // Same values
|
||||
// Expect(5).Should(BeAssignableToTypeOf(-1)) // different values same type
|
||||
// Expect("foo").Should(BeAssignableToTypeOf("bar")) // different values same type
|
||||
// Expect(struct{ Foo string }{}).Should(BeAssignableToTypeOf(struct{ Foo string }{}))
|
||||
func BeAssignableToTypeOf(expected interface{}) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.AssignableToTypeOfMatcher{
|
||||
Expected: expected,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//Panic succeeds if actual is a function that, when invoked, panics.
|
||||
//Actual must be a function that takes no arguments and returns no results.
|
||||
func Panic() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.PanicMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeAnExistingFile succeeds if a file exists.
|
||||
//Actual must be a string representing the abs path to the file being checked.
|
||||
func BeAnExistingFile() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeAnExistingFileMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeARegularFile succeeds if a file exists and is a regular file.
|
||||
//Actual must be a string representing the abs path to the file being checked.
|
||||
func BeARegularFile() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeARegularFileMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//BeADirectory succeeds if a file exists and is a directory.
|
||||
//Actual must be a string representing the abs path to the file being checked.
|
||||
func BeADirectory() types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.BeADirectoryMatcher{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//And succeeds only if all of the given matchers succeed.
|
||||
//The matchers are tried in order, and will fail-fast if one doesn't succeed.
|
||||
// Expect("hi").To(And(HaveLen(2), Equal("hi"))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//And(), Or(), Not() and WithTransform() allow matchers to be composed into complex expressions.
|
||||
func And(ms ...types.GomegaMatcher) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.AndMatcher{Matchers: ms}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//SatisfyAll is an alias for And().
|
||||
// Expect("hi").Should(SatisfyAll(HaveLen(2), Equal("hi")))
|
||||
func SatisfyAll(matchers ...types.GomegaMatcher) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return And(matchers...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//Or succeeds if any of the given matchers succeed.
|
||||
//The matchers are tried in order and will return immediately upon the first successful match.
|
||||
// Expect("hi").To(Or(HaveLen(3), HaveLen(2))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//And(), Or(), Not() and WithTransform() allow matchers to be composed into complex expressions.
|
||||
func Or(ms ...types.GomegaMatcher) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.OrMatcher{Matchers: ms}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//SatisfyAny is an alias for Or().
|
||||
// Expect("hi").SatisfyAny(Or(HaveLen(3), HaveLen(2))
|
||||
func SatisfyAny(matchers ...types.GomegaMatcher) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return Or(matchers...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//Not negates the given matcher; it succeeds if the given matcher fails.
|
||||
// Expect(1).To(Not(Equal(2))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//And(), Or(), Not() and WithTransform() allow matchers to be composed into complex expressions.
|
||||
func Not(matcher types.GomegaMatcher) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return &matchers.NotMatcher{Matcher: matcher}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//WithTransform applies the `transform` to the actual value and matches it against `matcher`.
|
||||
//The given transform must be a function of one parameter that returns one value.
|
||||
// var plus1 = func(i int) int { return i + 1 }
|
||||
// Expect(1).To(WithTransform(plus1, Equal(2))
|
||||
//
|
||||
//And(), Or(), Not() and WithTransform() allow matchers to be composed into complex expressions.
|
||||
func WithTransform(transform interface{}, matcher types.GomegaMatcher) types.GomegaMatcher {
|
||||
return matchers.NewWithTransformMatcher(transform, matcher)
|
||||
}
|
63
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/and.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/oraclematcher"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type AndMatcher struct {
|
||||
Matchers []types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
|
||||
// state
|
||||
firstFailedMatcher types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *AndMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
m.firstFailedMatcher = nil
|
||||
for _, matcher := range m.Matchers {
|
||||
success, err := matcher.Match(actual)
|
||||
if !success || err != nil {
|
||||
m.firstFailedMatcher = matcher
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *AndMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return m.firstFailedMatcher.FailureMessage(actual)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *AndMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
// not the most beautiful list of matchers, but not bad either...
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("To not satisfy all of these matchers: %s", m.Matchers))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *AndMatcher) MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(actual interface{}) bool {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Example with 3 matchers: A, B, C
|
||||
|
||||
Match evaluates them: T, F, <?> => F
|
||||
So match is currently F, what should MatchMayChangeInTheFuture() return?
|
||||
Seems like it only depends on B, since currently B MUST change to allow the result to become T
|
||||
|
||||
Match eval: T, T, T => T
|
||||
So match is currently T, what should MatchMayChangeInTheFuture() return?
|
||||
Seems to depend on ANY of them being able to change to F.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
if m.firstFailedMatcher == nil {
|
||||
// so all matchers succeeded.. Any one of them changing would change the result.
|
||||
for _, matcher := range m.Matchers {
|
||||
if oraclematcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(matcher, actual) {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false // none of were going to change
|
||||
}
|
||||
// one of the matchers failed.. it must be able to change in order to affect the result
|
||||
return oraclematcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(m.firstFailedMatcher, actual)
|
||||
}
|
35
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/assignable_to_type_of_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type AssignableToTypeOfMatcher struct {
|
||||
Expected interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *AssignableToTypeOfMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if actual == nil && matcher.Expected == nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Refusing to compare <nil> to <nil>.\nBe explicit and use BeNil() instead. This is to avoid mistakes where both sides of an assertion are erroneously uninitialized.")
|
||||
} else if matcher.Expected == nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Refusing to compare type to <nil>.\nBe explicit and use BeNil() instead. This is to avoid mistakes where both sides of an assertion are erroneously uninitialized.")
|
||||
} else if actual == nil {
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
actualType := reflect.TypeOf(actual)
|
||||
expectedType := reflect.TypeOf(matcher.Expected)
|
||||
|
||||
return actualType.AssignableTo(expectedType), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *AssignableToTypeOfMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) string {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("to be assignable to the type: %T", matcher.Expected))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *AssignableToTypeOfMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) string {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("not to be assignable to the type: %T", matcher.Expected))
|
||||
}
|
14
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/attributes_slice.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"encoding/xml"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type attributesSlice []xml.Attr
|
||||
|
||||
func (attrs attributesSlice) Len() int { return len(attrs) }
|
||||
func (attrs attributesSlice) Less(i, j int) bool {
|
||||
return strings.Compare(attrs[i].Name.Local, attrs[j].Name.Local) == -1
|
||||
}
|
||||
func (attrs attributesSlice) Swap(i, j int) { attrs[i], attrs[j] = attrs[j], attrs[i] }
|
54
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_a_directory.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"os"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type notADirectoryError struct {
|
||||
os.FileInfo
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (t notADirectoryError) Error() string {
|
||||
fileInfo := os.FileInfo(t)
|
||||
switch {
|
||||
case fileInfo.Mode().IsRegular():
|
||||
return "file is a regular file"
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("file mode is: %s", fileInfo.Mode().String())
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type BeADirectoryMatcher struct {
|
||||
expected interface{}
|
||||
err error
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeADirectoryMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualFilename, ok := actual.(string)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeADirectoryMatcher matcher expects a file path")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
fileInfo, err := os.Stat(actualFilename)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
matcher.err = err
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !fileInfo.Mode().IsDir() {
|
||||
matcher.err = notADirectoryError{fileInfo}
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeADirectoryMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("to be a directory: %s", matcher.err))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeADirectoryMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("not be a directory"))
|
||||
}
|
54
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_a_regular_file.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"os"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type notARegularFileError struct {
|
||||
os.FileInfo
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (t notARegularFileError) Error() string {
|
||||
fileInfo := os.FileInfo(t)
|
||||
switch {
|
||||
case fileInfo.IsDir():
|
||||
return "file is a directory"
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("file mode is: %s", fileInfo.Mode().String())
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type BeARegularFileMatcher struct {
|
||||
expected interface{}
|
||||
err error
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeARegularFileMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualFilename, ok := actual.(string)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeARegularFileMatcher matcher expects a file path")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
fileInfo, err := os.Stat(actualFilename)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
matcher.err = err
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !fileInfo.Mode().IsRegular() {
|
||||
matcher.err = notARegularFileError{fileInfo}
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeARegularFileMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("to be a regular file: %s", matcher.err))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeARegularFileMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("not be a regular file"))
|
||||
}
|
38
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_an_existing_file.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"os"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeAnExistingFileMatcher struct {
|
||||
expected interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeAnExistingFileMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualFilename, ok := actual.(string)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeAnExistingFileMatcher matcher expects a file path")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if _, err = os.Stat(actualFilename); err != nil {
|
||||
switch {
|
||||
case os.IsNotExist(err):
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeAnExistingFileMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("to exist"))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeAnExistingFileMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("not to exist"))
|
||||
}
|
46
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_closed_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeClosedMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeClosedMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isChan(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeClosed matcher expects a channel. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
channelType := reflect.TypeOf(actual)
|
||||
channelValue := reflect.ValueOf(actual)
|
||||
|
||||
if channelType.ChanDir() == reflect.SendDir {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeClosed matcher cannot determine if a send-only channel is closed or open. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
winnerIndex, _, open := reflect.Select([]reflect.SelectCase{
|
||||
{Dir: reflect.SelectRecv, Chan: channelValue},
|
||||
{Dir: reflect.SelectDefault},
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
var closed bool
|
||||
if winnerIndex == 0 {
|
||||
closed = !open
|
||||
} else if winnerIndex == 1 {
|
||||
closed = false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return closed, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeClosedMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be closed")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeClosedMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be open")
|
||||
}
|
27
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_empty_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeEmptyMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeEmptyMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
length, ok := lengthOf(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeEmpty matcher expects a string/array/map/channel/slice. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return length == 0, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeEmptyMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be empty")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeEmptyMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to be empty")
|
||||
}
|
34
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_equivalent_to_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeEquivalentToMatcher struct {
|
||||
Expected interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeEquivalentToMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if actual == nil && matcher.Expected == nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Both actual and expected must not be nil.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
convertedActual := actual
|
||||
|
||||
if actual != nil && matcher.Expected != nil && reflect.TypeOf(actual).ConvertibleTo(reflect.TypeOf(matcher.Expected)) {
|
||||
convertedActual = reflect.ValueOf(actual).Convert(reflect.TypeOf(matcher.Expected)).Interface()
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(convertedActual, matcher.Expected), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeEquivalentToMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be equivalent to", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeEquivalentToMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to be equivalent to", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
26
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_false_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeFalseMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeFalseMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isBool(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected a boolean. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return actual == false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeFalseMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be false")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeFalseMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to be false")
|
||||
}
|
37
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_identical_to.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"runtime"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeIdenticalToMatcher struct {
|
||||
Expected interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeIdenticalToMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, matchErr error) {
|
||||
if actual == nil && matcher.Expected == nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Refusing to compare <nil> to <nil>.\nBe explicit and use BeNil() instead. This is to avoid mistakes where both sides of an assertion are erroneously uninitialized.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
defer func() {
|
||||
if r := recover(); r != nil {
|
||||
if _, ok := r.(runtime.Error); ok {
|
||||
success = false
|
||||
matchErr = nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}()
|
||||
|
||||
return actual == matcher.Expected, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeIdenticalToMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) string {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be identical to", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeIdenticalToMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) string {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to be identical to", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
18
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_nil_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import "github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
|
||||
type BeNilMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNilMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
return isNil(actual), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNilMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be nil")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNilMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to be nil")
|
||||
}
|
132
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_numerically_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"math"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeNumericallyMatcher struct {
|
||||
Comparator string
|
||||
CompareTo []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNumericallyMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return matcher.FormatFailureMessage(actual, false)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNumericallyMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return matcher.FormatFailureMessage(actual, true)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNumericallyMatcher) FormatFailureMessage(actual interface{}, negated bool) (message string) {
|
||||
if len(matcher.CompareTo) == 1 {
|
||||
message = fmt.Sprintf("to be %s", matcher.Comparator)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
message = fmt.Sprintf("to be within %v of %s", matcher.CompareTo[1], matcher.Comparator)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if negated {
|
||||
message = "not " + message
|
||||
}
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, message, matcher.CompareTo[0])
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNumericallyMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if len(matcher.CompareTo) == 0 || len(matcher.CompareTo) > 2 {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeNumerically requires 1 or 2 CompareTo arguments. Got:\n%s", format.Object(matcher.CompareTo, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !isNumber(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected a number. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !isNumber(matcher.CompareTo[0]) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected a number. Got:\n%s", format.Object(matcher.CompareTo[0], 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
if len(matcher.CompareTo) == 2 && !isNumber(matcher.CompareTo[1]) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected a number. Got:\n%s", format.Object(matcher.CompareTo[0], 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch matcher.Comparator {
|
||||
case "==", "~", ">", ">=", "<", "<=":
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Unknown comparator: %s", matcher.Comparator)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if isFloat(actual) || isFloat(matcher.CompareTo[0]) {
|
||||
var secondOperand float64 = 1e-8
|
||||
if len(matcher.CompareTo) == 2 {
|
||||
secondOperand = toFloat(matcher.CompareTo[1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
success = matcher.matchFloats(toFloat(actual), toFloat(matcher.CompareTo[0]), secondOperand)
|
||||
} else if isInteger(actual) {
|
||||
var secondOperand int64 = 0
|
||||
if len(matcher.CompareTo) == 2 {
|
||||
secondOperand = toInteger(matcher.CompareTo[1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
success = matcher.matchIntegers(toInteger(actual), toInteger(matcher.CompareTo[0]), secondOperand)
|
||||
} else if isUnsignedInteger(actual) {
|
||||
var secondOperand uint64 = 0
|
||||
if len(matcher.CompareTo) == 2 {
|
||||
secondOperand = toUnsignedInteger(matcher.CompareTo[1])
|
||||
}
|
||||
success = matcher.matchUnsignedIntegers(toUnsignedInteger(actual), toUnsignedInteger(matcher.CompareTo[0]), secondOperand)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Failed to compare:\n%s\n%s:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1), matcher.Comparator, format.Object(matcher.CompareTo[0], 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return success, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNumericallyMatcher) matchIntegers(actual, compareTo, threshold int64) (success bool) {
|
||||
switch matcher.Comparator {
|
||||
case "==", "~":
|
||||
diff := actual - compareTo
|
||||
return -threshold <= diff && diff <= threshold
|
||||
case ">":
|
||||
return (actual > compareTo)
|
||||
case ">=":
|
||||
return (actual >= compareTo)
|
||||
case "<":
|
||||
return (actual < compareTo)
|
||||
case "<=":
|
||||
return (actual <= compareTo)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNumericallyMatcher) matchUnsignedIntegers(actual, compareTo, threshold uint64) (success bool) {
|
||||
switch matcher.Comparator {
|
||||
case "==", "~":
|
||||
if actual < compareTo {
|
||||
actual, compareTo = compareTo, actual
|
||||
}
|
||||
return actual-compareTo <= threshold
|
||||
case ">":
|
||||
return (actual > compareTo)
|
||||
case ">=":
|
||||
return (actual >= compareTo)
|
||||
case "<":
|
||||
return (actual < compareTo)
|
||||
case "<=":
|
||||
return (actual <= compareTo)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeNumericallyMatcher) matchFloats(actual, compareTo, threshold float64) (success bool) {
|
||||
switch matcher.Comparator {
|
||||
case "~":
|
||||
return math.Abs(actual-compareTo) <= threshold
|
||||
case "==":
|
||||
return (actual == compareTo)
|
||||
case ">":
|
||||
return (actual > compareTo)
|
||||
case ">=":
|
||||
return (actual >= compareTo)
|
||||
case "<":
|
||||
return (actual < compareTo)
|
||||
case "<=":
|
||||
return (actual <= compareTo)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
71
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_sent_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeSentMatcher struct {
|
||||
Arg interface{}
|
||||
channelClosed bool
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeSentMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isChan(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeSent expects a channel. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
channelType := reflect.TypeOf(actual)
|
||||
channelValue := reflect.ValueOf(actual)
|
||||
|
||||
if channelType.ChanDir() == reflect.RecvDir {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("BeSent matcher cannot be passed a receive-only channel. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
argType := reflect.TypeOf(matcher.Arg)
|
||||
assignable := argType.AssignableTo(channelType.Elem())
|
||||
|
||||
if !assignable {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Cannot pass:\n%s to the channel:\n%s\nThe types don't match.", format.Object(matcher.Arg, 1), format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
argValue := reflect.ValueOf(matcher.Arg)
|
||||
|
||||
defer func() {
|
||||
if e := recover(); e != nil {
|
||||
success = false
|
||||
err = fmt.Errorf("Cannot send to a closed channel")
|
||||
matcher.channelClosed = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}()
|
||||
|
||||
winnerIndex, _, _ := reflect.Select([]reflect.SelectCase{
|
||||
{Dir: reflect.SelectSend, Chan: channelValue, Send: argValue},
|
||||
{Dir: reflect.SelectDefault},
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
var didSend bool
|
||||
if winnerIndex == 0 {
|
||||
didSend = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return didSend, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeSentMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to send:", matcher.Arg)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeSentMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to send:", matcher.Arg)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeSentMatcher) MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(actual interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if !isChan(actual) {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return !matcher.channelClosed
|
||||
}
|
66
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_temporally_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"time"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeTemporallyMatcher struct {
|
||||
Comparator string
|
||||
CompareTo time.Time
|
||||
Threshold []time.Duration
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeTemporallyMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("to be %s", matcher.Comparator), matcher.CompareTo)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeTemporallyMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("not to be %s", matcher.Comparator), matcher.CompareTo)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeTemporallyMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (bool, error) {
|
||||
// predicate to test for time.Time type
|
||||
isTime := func(t interface{}) bool {
|
||||
_, ok := t.(time.Time)
|
||||
return ok
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !isTime(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected a time.Time. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch matcher.Comparator {
|
||||
case "==", "~", ">", ">=", "<", "<=":
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Unknown comparator: %s", matcher.Comparator)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var threshold = time.Millisecond
|
||||
if len(matcher.Threshold) == 1 {
|
||||
threshold = matcher.Threshold[0]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return matcher.matchTimes(actual.(time.Time), matcher.CompareTo, threshold), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeTemporallyMatcher) matchTimes(actual, compareTo time.Time, threshold time.Duration) (success bool) {
|
||||
switch matcher.Comparator {
|
||||
case "==":
|
||||
return actual.Equal(compareTo)
|
||||
case "~":
|
||||
diff := actual.Sub(compareTo)
|
||||
return -threshold <= diff && diff <= threshold
|
||||
case ">":
|
||||
return actual.After(compareTo)
|
||||
case ">=":
|
||||
return !actual.Before(compareTo)
|
||||
case "<":
|
||||
return actual.Before(compareTo)
|
||||
case "<=":
|
||||
return !actual.After(compareTo)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
26
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_true_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeTrueMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeTrueMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isBool(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected a boolean. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return actual.(bool), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeTrueMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be true")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeTrueMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to be true")
|
||||
}
|
28
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/be_zero_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type BeZeroMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeZeroMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if actual == nil {
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
zeroValue := reflect.Zero(reflect.TypeOf(actual)).Interface()
|
||||
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(zeroValue, actual), nil
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeZeroMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to be zero-valued")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *BeZeroMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to be zero-valued")
|
||||
}
|
80
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/consist_of.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/bipartitegraph"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type ConsistOfMatcher struct {
|
||||
Elements []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ConsistOfMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isArrayOrSlice(actual) && !isMap(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("ConsistOf matcher expects an array/slice/map. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
elements := matcher.Elements
|
||||
if len(matcher.Elements) == 1 && isArrayOrSlice(matcher.Elements[0]) {
|
||||
elements = []interface{}{}
|
||||
value := reflect.ValueOf(matcher.Elements[0])
|
||||
for i := 0; i < value.Len(); i++ {
|
||||
elements = append(elements, value.Index(i).Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
matchers := []interface{}{}
|
||||
for _, element := range elements {
|
||||
matcher, isMatcher := element.(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
if !isMatcher {
|
||||
matcher = &EqualMatcher{Expected: element}
|
||||
}
|
||||
matchers = append(matchers, matcher)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
values := matcher.valuesOf(actual)
|
||||
|
||||
if len(values) != len(matchers) {
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
neighbours := func(v, m interface{}) (bool, error) {
|
||||
match, err := m.(omegaMatcher).Match(v)
|
||||
return match && err == nil, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
bipartiteGraph, err := bipartitegraph.NewBipartiteGraph(values, matchers, neighbours)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return len(bipartiteGraph.LargestMatching()) == len(values), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ConsistOfMatcher) valuesOf(actual interface{}) []interface{} {
|
||||
value := reflect.ValueOf(actual)
|
||||
values := []interface{}{}
|
||||
if isMap(actual) {
|
||||
keys := value.MapKeys()
|
||||
for i := 0; i < value.Len(); i++ {
|
||||
values = append(values, value.MapIndex(keys[i]).Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
for i := 0; i < value.Len(); i++ {
|
||||
values = append(values, value.Index(i).Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return values
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ConsistOfMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to consist of", matcher.Elements)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ConsistOfMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to consist of", matcher.Elements)
|
||||
}
|
56
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/contain_element_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type ContainElementMatcher struct {
|
||||
Element interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ContainElementMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isArrayOrSlice(actual) && !isMap(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("ContainElement matcher expects an array/slice/map. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
elemMatcher, elementIsMatcher := matcher.Element.(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
if !elementIsMatcher {
|
||||
elemMatcher = &EqualMatcher{Expected: matcher.Element}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
value := reflect.ValueOf(actual)
|
||||
var keys []reflect.Value
|
||||
if isMap(actual) {
|
||||
keys = value.MapKeys()
|
||||
}
|
||||
var lastError error
|
||||
for i := 0; i < value.Len(); i++ {
|
||||
var success bool
|
||||
var err error
|
||||
if isMap(actual) {
|
||||
success, err = elemMatcher.Match(value.MapIndex(keys[i]).Interface())
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
success, err = elemMatcher.Match(value.Index(i).Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
lastError = err
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
if success {
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false, lastError
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ContainElementMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to contain element matching", matcher.Element)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ContainElementMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to contain element matching", matcher.Element)
|
||||
}
|
38
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/contain_substring_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type ContainSubstringMatcher struct {
|
||||
Substr string
|
||||
Args []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ContainSubstringMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, ok := toString(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("ContainSubstring matcher requires a string or stringer. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return strings.Contains(actualString, matcher.stringToMatch()), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ContainSubstringMatcher) stringToMatch() string {
|
||||
stringToMatch := matcher.Substr
|
||||
if len(matcher.Args) > 0 {
|
||||
stringToMatch = fmt.Sprintf(matcher.Substr, matcher.Args...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return stringToMatch
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ContainSubstringMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to contain substring", matcher.stringToMatch())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ContainSubstringMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to contain substring", matcher.stringToMatch())
|
||||
}
|
42
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/equal_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"bytes"
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type EqualMatcher struct {
|
||||
Expected interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *EqualMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if actual == nil && matcher.Expected == nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Refusing to compare <nil> to <nil>.\nBe explicit and use BeNil() instead. This is to avoid mistakes where both sides of an assertion are erroneously uninitialized.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
// Shortcut for byte slices.
|
||||
// Comparing long byte slices with reflect.DeepEqual is very slow,
|
||||
// so use bytes.Equal if actual and expected are both byte slices.
|
||||
if actualByteSlice, ok := actual.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
if expectedByteSlice, ok := matcher.Expected.([]byte); ok {
|
||||
return bytes.Equal(actualByteSlice, expectedByteSlice), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(actual, matcher.Expected), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *EqualMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
actualString, actualOK := actual.(string)
|
||||
expectedString, expectedOK := matcher.Expected.(string)
|
||||
if actualOK && expectedOK {
|
||||
return format.MessageWithDiff(actualString, "to equal", expectedString)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to equal", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *EqualMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to equal", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
28
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/have_cap_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type HaveCapMatcher struct {
|
||||
Count int
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveCapMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
length, ok := capOf(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveCap matcher expects a array/channel/slice. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return length == matcher.Count, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveCapMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\nto have capacity %d", format.Object(actual, 1), matcher.Count)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveCapMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\nnot to have capacity %d", format.Object(actual, 1), matcher.Count)
|
||||
}
|
54
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/have_key_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type HaveKeyMatcher struct {
|
||||
Key interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveKeyMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isMap(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveKey matcher expects a map. Got:%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
keyMatcher, keyIsMatcher := matcher.Key.(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
if !keyIsMatcher {
|
||||
keyMatcher = &EqualMatcher{Expected: matcher.Key}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
keys := reflect.ValueOf(actual).MapKeys()
|
||||
for i := 0; i < len(keys); i++ {
|
||||
success, err := keyMatcher.Match(keys[i].Interface())
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveKey's key matcher failed with:\n%s%s", format.Indent, err.Error())
|
||||
}
|
||||
if success {
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveKeyMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
switch matcher.Key.(type) {
|
||||
case omegaMatcher:
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to have key matching", matcher.Key)
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to have key", matcher.Key)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveKeyMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
switch matcher.Key.(type) {
|
||||
case omegaMatcher:
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to have key matching", matcher.Key)
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to have key", matcher.Key)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
74
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/have_key_with_value_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type HaveKeyWithValueMatcher struct {
|
||||
Key interface{}
|
||||
Value interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveKeyWithValueMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isMap(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveKeyWithValue matcher expects a map. Got:%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
keyMatcher, keyIsMatcher := matcher.Key.(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
if !keyIsMatcher {
|
||||
keyMatcher = &EqualMatcher{Expected: matcher.Key}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
valueMatcher, valueIsMatcher := matcher.Value.(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
if !valueIsMatcher {
|
||||
valueMatcher = &EqualMatcher{Expected: matcher.Value}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
keys := reflect.ValueOf(actual).MapKeys()
|
||||
for i := 0; i < len(keys); i++ {
|
||||
success, err := keyMatcher.Match(keys[i].Interface())
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveKeyWithValue's key matcher failed with:\n%s%s", format.Indent, err.Error())
|
||||
}
|
||||
if success {
|
||||
actualValue := reflect.ValueOf(actual).MapIndex(keys[i])
|
||||
success, err := valueMatcher.Match(actualValue.Interface())
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveKeyWithValue's value matcher failed with:\n%s%s", format.Indent, err.Error())
|
||||
}
|
||||
return success, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveKeyWithValueMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
str := "to have {key: value}"
|
||||
if _, ok := matcher.Key.(omegaMatcher); ok {
|
||||
str += " matching"
|
||||
} else if _, ok := matcher.Value.(omegaMatcher); ok {
|
||||
str += " matching"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
expect := make(map[interface{}]interface{}, 1)
|
||||
expect[matcher.Key] = matcher.Value
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, str, expect)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveKeyWithValueMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
kStr := "not to have key"
|
||||
if _, ok := matcher.Key.(omegaMatcher); ok {
|
||||
kStr = "not to have key matching"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
vStr := "or that key's value not be"
|
||||
if _, ok := matcher.Value.(omegaMatcher); ok {
|
||||
vStr = "or to have that key's value not matching"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, kStr, matcher.Key, vStr, matcher.Value)
|
||||
}
|
28
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/have_len_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type HaveLenMatcher struct {
|
||||
Count int
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveLenMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
length, ok := lengthOf(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveLen matcher expects a string/array/map/channel/slice. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return length == matcher.Count, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveLenMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\nto have length %d", format.Object(actual, 1), matcher.Count)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveLenMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\nnot to have length %d", format.Object(actual, 1), matcher.Count)
|
||||
}
|
33
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/have_occurred_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type HaveOccurredMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveOccurredMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
// is purely nil?
|
||||
if actual == nil {
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// must be an 'error' type
|
||||
if !isError(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected an error-type. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// must be non-nil (or a pointer to a non-nil)
|
||||
return !isNil(actual), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveOccurredMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected an error to have occurred. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveOccurredMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Unexpected error:\n%s\n%s\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1), format.IndentString(actual.(error).Error(), 1), "occurred")
|
||||
}
|
36
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/have_prefix_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type HavePrefixMatcher struct {
|
||||
Prefix string
|
||||
Args []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HavePrefixMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, ok := toString(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HavePrefix matcher requires a string or stringer. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
prefix := matcher.prefix()
|
||||
return len(actualString) >= len(prefix) && actualString[0:len(prefix)] == prefix, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HavePrefixMatcher) prefix() string {
|
||||
if len(matcher.Args) > 0 {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf(matcher.Prefix, matcher.Args...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return matcher.Prefix
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HavePrefixMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to have prefix", matcher.prefix())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HavePrefixMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to have prefix", matcher.prefix())
|
||||
}
|
36
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/have_suffix_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type HaveSuffixMatcher struct {
|
||||
Suffix string
|
||||
Args []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveSuffixMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, ok := toString(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("HaveSuffix matcher requires a string or stringer. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
suffix := matcher.suffix()
|
||||
return len(actualString) >= len(suffix) && actualString[len(actualString)-len(suffix):] == suffix, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveSuffixMatcher) suffix() string {
|
||||
if len(matcher.Args) > 0 {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf(matcher.Suffix, matcher.Args...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return matcher.Suffix
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveSuffixMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to have suffix", matcher.suffix())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *HaveSuffixMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to have suffix", matcher.suffix())
|
||||
}
|
51
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/match_error_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type MatchErrorMatcher struct {
|
||||
Expected interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchErrorMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if isNil(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected an error, got nil")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if !isError(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected an error. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
actualErr := actual.(error)
|
||||
|
||||
if isError(matcher.Expected) {
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(actualErr, matcher.Expected), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if isString(matcher.Expected) {
|
||||
return actualErr.Error() == matcher.Expected, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var subMatcher omegaMatcher
|
||||
var hasSubMatcher bool
|
||||
if matcher.Expected != nil {
|
||||
subMatcher, hasSubMatcher = (matcher.Expected).(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
if hasSubMatcher {
|
||||
return subMatcher.Match(actualErr.Error())
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("MatchError must be passed an error, string, or Matcher that can match on strings. Got:\n%s", format.Object(matcher.Expected, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchErrorMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to match error", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchErrorMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to match error", matcher.Expected)
|
||||
}
|
65
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/match_json_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"bytes"
|
||||
"encoding/json"
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type MatchJSONMatcher struct {
|
||||
JSONToMatch interface{}
|
||||
firstFailurePath []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchJSONMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, err := matcher.prettyPrint(actual)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var aval interface{}
|
||||
var eval interface{}
|
||||
|
||||
// this is guarded by prettyPrint
|
||||
json.Unmarshal([]byte(actualString), &aval)
|
||||
json.Unmarshal([]byte(expectedString), &eval)
|
||||
var equal bool
|
||||
equal, matcher.firstFailurePath = deepEqual(aval, eval)
|
||||
return equal, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchJSONMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, _ := matcher.prettyPrint(actual)
|
||||
return formattedMessage(format.Message(actualString, "to match JSON of", expectedString), matcher.firstFailurePath)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchJSONMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, _ := matcher.prettyPrint(actual)
|
||||
return formattedMessage(format.Message(actualString, "not to match JSON of", expectedString), matcher.firstFailurePath)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchJSONMatcher) prettyPrint(actual interface{}) (actualFormatted, expectedFormatted string, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, ok := toString(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("MatchJSONMatcher matcher requires a string, stringer, or []byte. Got actual:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
expectedString, ok := toString(matcher.JSONToMatch)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("MatchJSONMatcher matcher requires a string, stringer, or []byte. Got expected:\n%s", format.Object(matcher.JSONToMatch, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
abuf := new(bytes.Buffer)
|
||||
ebuf := new(bytes.Buffer)
|
||||
|
||||
if err := json.Indent(abuf, []byte(actualString), "", " "); err != nil {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("Actual '%s' should be valid JSON, but it is not.\nUnderlying error:%s", actualString, err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if err := json.Indent(ebuf, []byte(expectedString), "", " "); err != nil {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("Expected '%s' should be valid JSON, but it is not.\nUnderlying error:%s", expectedString, err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return abuf.String(), ebuf.String(), nil
|
||||
}
|
43
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/match_regexp_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"regexp"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type MatchRegexpMatcher struct {
|
||||
Regexp string
|
||||
Args []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchRegexpMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, ok := toString(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("RegExp matcher requires a string or stringer.\nGot:%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
match, err := regexp.Match(matcher.regexp(), []byte(actualString))
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("RegExp match failed to compile with error:\n\t%s", err.Error())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return match, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchRegexpMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to match regular expression", matcher.regexp())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchRegexpMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to match regular expression", matcher.regexp())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchRegexpMatcher) regexp() string {
|
||||
re := matcher.Regexp
|
||||
if len(matcher.Args) > 0 {
|
||||
re = fmt.Sprintf(matcher.Regexp, matcher.Args...)
|
||||
}
|
||||
return re
|
||||
}
|
134
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/match_xml_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"bytes"
|
||||
"encoding/xml"
|
||||
"errors"
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"io"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"sort"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
"golang.org/x/net/html/charset"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type MatchXMLMatcher struct {
|
||||
XMLToMatch interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchXMLMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, err := matcher.formattedPrint(actual)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
aval, err := parseXmlContent(actualString)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Actual '%s' should be valid XML, but it is not.\nUnderlying error:%s", actualString, err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
eval, err := parseXmlContent(expectedString)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected '%s' should be valid XML, but it is not.\nUnderlying error:%s", expectedString, err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return reflect.DeepEqual(aval, eval), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchXMLMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, _ := matcher.formattedPrint(actual)
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\nto match XML of\n%s", actualString, expectedString)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchXMLMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, _ := matcher.formattedPrint(actual)
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected\n%s\nnot to match XML of\n%s", actualString, expectedString)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchXMLMatcher) formattedPrint(actual interface{}) (actualString, expectedString string, err error) {
|
||||
var ok bool
|
||||
actualString, ok = toString(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("MatchXMLMatcher matcher requires a string, stringer, or []byte. Got actual:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
expectedString, ok = toString(matcher.XMLToMatch)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("MatchXMLMatcher matcher requires a string, stringer, or []byte. Got expected:\n%s", format.Object(matcher.XMLToMatch, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
return actualString, expectedString, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func parseXmlContent(content string) (*xmlNode, error) {
|
||||
allNodes := []*xmlNode{}
|
||||
|
||||
dec := newXmlDecoder(strings.NewReader(content))
|
||||
for {
|
||||
tok, err := dec.Token()
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
if err == io.EOF {
|
||||
break
|
||||
}
|
||||
return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to decode next token: %v", err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
lastNodeIndex := len(allNodes) - 1
|
||||
var lastNode *xmlNode
|
||||
if len(allNodes) > 0 {
|
||||
lastNode = allNodes[lastNodeIndex]
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
lastNode = &xmlNode{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch tok := tok.(type) {
|
||||
case xml.StartElement:
|
||||
attrs := attributesSlice(tok.Attr)
|
||||
sort.Sort(attrs)
|
||||
allNodes = append(allNodes, &xmlNode{XMLName: tok.Name, XMLAttr: tok.Attr})
|
||||
case xml.EndElement:
|
||||
if len(allNodes) > 1 {
|
||||
allNodes[lastNodeIndex-1].Nodes = append(allNodes[lastNodeIndex-1].Nodes, lastNode)
|
||||
allNodes = allNodes[:lastNodeIndex]
|
||||
}
|
||||
case xml.CharData:
|
||||
lastNode.Content = append(lastNode.Content, tok.Copy()...)
|
||||
case xml.Comment:
|
||||
lastNode.Comments = append(lastNode.Comments, tok.Copy())
|
||||
case xml.ProcInst:
|
||||
lastNode.ProcInsts = append(lastNode.ProcInsts, tok.Copy())
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if len(allNodes) == 0 {
|
||||
return nil, errors.New("found no nodes")
|
||||
}
|
||||
firstNode := allNodes[0]
|
||||
trimParentNodesContentSpaces(firstNode)
|
||||
|
||||
return firstNode, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func newXmlDecoder(reader io.Reader) *xml.Decoder {
|
||||
dec := xml.NewDecoder(reader)
|
||||
dec.CharsetReader = charset.NewReaderLabel
|
||||
return dec
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func trimParentNodesContentSpaces(node *xmlNode) {
|
||||
if len(node.Nodes) > 0 {
|
||||
node.Content = bytes.TrimSpace(node.Content)
|
||||
for _, childNode := range node.Nodes {
|
||||
trimParentNodesContentSpaces(childNode)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type xmlNode struct {
|
||||
XMLName xml.Name
|
||||
Comments []xml.Comment
|
||||
ProcInsts []xml.ProcInst
|
||||
XMLAttr []xml.Attr
|
||||
Content []byte
|
||||
Nodes []*xmlNode
|
||||
}
|
76
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/match_yaml_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
"gopkg.in/yaml.v2"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type MatchYAMLMatcher struct {
|
||||
YAMLToMatch interface{}
|
||||
firstFailurePath []interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchYAMLMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, err := matcher.toStrings(actual)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var aval interface{}
|
||||
var eval interface{}
|
||||
|
||||
if err := yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(actualString), &aval); err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Actual '%s' should be valid YAML, but it is not.\nUnderlying error:%s", actualString, err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
if err := yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(expectedString), &eval); err != nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected '%s' should be valid YAML, but it is not.\nUnderlying error:%s", expectedString, err)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var equal bool
|
||||
equal, matcher.firstFailurePath = deepEqual(aval, eval)
|
||||
return equal, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchYAMLMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, _ := matcher.toNormalisedStrings(actual)
|
||||
return formattedMessage(format.Message(actualString, "to match YAML of", expectedString), matcher.firstFailurePath)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchYAMLMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, _ := matcher.toNormalisedStrings(actual)
|
||||
return formattedMessage(format.Message(actualString, "not to match YAML of", expectedString), matcher.firstFailurePath)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchYAMLMatcher) toNormalisedStrings(actual interface{}) (actualFormatted, expectedFormatted string, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, expectedString, err := matcher.toStrings(actual)
|
||||
return normalise(actualString), normalise(expectedString), err
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func normalise(input string) string {
|
||||
var val interface{}
|
||||
err := yaml.Unmarshal([]byte(input), &val)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
panic(err) // unreachable since Match already calls Unmarshal
|
||||
}
|
||||
output, err := yaml.Marshal(val)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
panic(err) // untested section, unreachable since we Unmarshal above
|
||||
}
|
||||
return strings.TrimSpace(string(output))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *MatchYAMLMatcher) toStrings(actual interface{}) (actualFormatted, expectedFormatted string, err error) {
|
||||
actualString, ok := toString(actual)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("MatchYAMLMatcher matcher requires a string, stringer, or []byte. Got actual:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
expectedString, ok := toString(matcher.YAMLToMatch)
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return "", "", fmt.Errorf("MatchYAMLMatcher matcher requires a string, stringer, or []byte. Got expected:\n%s", format.Object(matcher.YAMLToMatch, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return actualString, expectedString, nil
|
||||
}
|
30
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/not.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/oraclematcher"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type NotMatcher struct {
|
||||
Matcher types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *NotMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (bool, error) {
|
||||
success, err := m.Matcher.Match(actual)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
return !success, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *NotMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return m.Matcher.NegatedFailureMessage(actual) // works beautifully
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *NotMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return m.Matcher.FailureMessage(actual) // works beautifully
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *NotMatcher) MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(actual interface{}) bool {
|
||||
return oraclematcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(m.Matcher, actual) // just return m.Matcher's value
|
||||
}
|
67
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/or.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/oraclematcher"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type OrMatcher struct {
|
||||
Matchers []types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
|
||||
// state
|
||||
firstSuccessfulMatcher types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *OrMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
m.firstSuccessfulMatcher = nil
|
||||
for _, matcher := range m.Matchers {
|
||||
success, err := matcher.Match(actual)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return false, err
|
||||
}
|
||||
if success {
|
||||
m.firstSuccessfulMatcher = matcher
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *OrMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
// not the most beautiful list of matchers, but not bad either...
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("To satisfy at least one of these matchers: %s", m.Matchers))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *OrMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return m.firstSuccessfulMatcher.NegatedFailureMessage(actual)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *OrMatcher) MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(actual interface{}) bool {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Example with 3 matchers: A, B, C
|
||||
|
||||
Match evaluates them: F, T, <?> => T
|
||||
So match is currently T, what should MatchMayChangeInTheFuture() return?
|
||||
Seems like it only depends on B, since currently B MUST change to allow the result to become F
|
||||
|
||||
Match eval: F, F, F => F
|
||||
So match is currently F, what should MatchMayChangeInTheFuture() return?
|
||||
Seems to depend on ANY of them being able to change to T.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
if m.firstSuccessfulMatcher != nil {
|
||||
// one of the matchers succeeded.. it must be able to change in order to affect the result
|
||||
return oraclematcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(m.firstSuccessfulMatcher, actual)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
// so all matchers failed.. Any one of them changing would change the result.
|
||||
for _, matcher := range m.Matchers {
|
||||
if oraclematcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(matcher, actual) {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false // none of were going to change
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
46
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/panic_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type PanicMatcher struct {
|
||||
object interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *PanicMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if actual == nil {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("PanicMatcher expects a non-nil actual.")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
actualType := reflect.TypeOf(actual)
|
||||
if actualType.Kind() != reflect.Func {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("PanicMatcher expects a function. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
if !(actualType.NumIn() == 0 && actualType.NumOut() == 0) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("PanicMatcher expects a function with no arguments and no return value. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
success = false
|
||||
defer func() {
|
||||
if e := recover(); e != nil {
|
||||
matcher.object = e
|
||||
success = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}()
|
||||
|
||||
reflect.ValueOf(actual).Call([]reflect.Value{})
|
||||
|
||||
return
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *PanicMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to panic")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *PanicMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, fmt.Sprintf("not to panic, but panicked with\n%s", format.Object(matcher.object, 1)))
|
||||
}
|
128
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/receive_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type ReceiveMatcher struct {
|
||||
Arg interface{}
|
||||
receivedValue reflect.Value
|
||||
channelClosed bool
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ReceiveMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
if !isChan(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("ReceiveMatcher expects a channel. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
channelType := reflect.TypeOf(actual)
|
||||
channelValue := reflect.ValueOf(actual)
|
||||
|
||||
if channelType.ChanDir() == reflect.SendDir {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("ReceiveMatcher matcher cannot be passed a send-only channel. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
var subMatcher omegaMatcher
|
||||
var hasSubMatcher bool
|
||||
|
||||
if matcher.Arg != nil {
|
||||
subMatcher, hasSubMatcher = (matcher.Arg).(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
if !hasSubMatcher {
|
||||
argType := reflect.TypeOf(matcher.Arg)
|
||||
if argType.Kind() != reflect.Ptr {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Cannot assign a value from the channel:\n%s\nTo:\n%s\nYou need to pass a pointer!", format.Object(actual, 1), format.Object(matcher.Arg, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
winnerIndex, value, open := reflect.Select([]reflect.SelectCase{
|
||||
{Dir: reflect.SelectRecv, Chan: channelValue},
|
||||
{Dir: reflect.SelectDefault},
|
||||
})
|
||||
|
||||
var closed bool
|
||||
var didReceive bool
|
||||
if winnerIndex == 0 {
|
||||
closed = !open
|
||||
didReceive = open
|
||||
}
|
||||
matcher.channelClosed = closed
|
||||
|
||||
if closed {
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if hasSubMatcher {
|
||||
if didReceive {
|
||||
matcher.receivedValue = value
|
||||
return subMatcher.Match(matcher.receivedValue.Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if didReceive {
|
||||
if matcher.Arg != nil {
|
||||
outValue := reflect.ValueOf(matcher.Arg)
|
||||
|
||||
if value.Type().AssignableTo(outValue.Elem().Type()) {
|
||||
outValue.Elem().Set(value)
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
if value.Type().Kind() == reflect.Interface && value.Elem().Type().AssignableTo(outValue.Elem().Type()) {
|
||||
outValue.Elem().Set(value.Elem())
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Cannot assign a value from the channel:\n%s\nType:\n%s\nTo:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1), format.Object(value.Interface(), 1), format.Object(matcher.Arg, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
return false, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ReceiveMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
subMatcher, hasSubMatcher := (matcher.Arg).(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
|
||||
closedAddendum := ""
|
||||
if matcher.channelClosed {
|
||||
closedAddendum = " The channel is closed."
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if hasSubMatcher {
|
||||
if matcher.receivedValue.IsValid() {
|
||||
return subMatcher.FailureMessage(matcher.receivedValue.Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
return "When passed a matcher, ReceiveMatcher's channel *must* receive something."
|
||||
}
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "to receive something."+closedAddendum)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ReceiveMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
subMatcher, hasSubMatcher := (matcher.Arg).(omegaMatcher)
|
||||
|
||||
closedAddendum := ""
|
||||
if matcher.channelClosed {
|
||||
closedAddendum = " The channel is closed."
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if hasSubMatcher {
|
||||
if matcher.receivedValue.IsValid() {
|
||||
return subMatcher.NegatedFailureMessage(matcher.receivedValue.Interface())
|
||||
}
|
||||
return "When passed a matcher, ReceiveMatcher's channel *must* receive something."
|
||||
}
|
||||
return format.Message(actual, "not to receive anything."+closedAddendum)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *ReceiveMatcher) MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(actual interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if !isChan(actual) {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return !matcher.channelClosed
|
||||
}
|
92
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/semi_structured_data_support.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
"strings"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
func formattedMessage(comparisonMessage string, failurePath []interface{}) string {
|
||||
var diffMessage string
|
||||
if len(failurePath) == 0 {
|
||||
diffMessage = ""
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
diffMessage = fmt.Sprintf("\n\nfirst mismatched key: %s", formattedFailurePath(failurePath))
|
||||
}
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("%s%s", comparisonMessage, diffMessage)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func formattedFailurePath(failurePath []interface{}) string {
|
||||
formattedPaths := []string{}
|
||||
for i := len(failurePath) - 1; i >= 0; i-- {
|
||||
switch p := failurePath[i].(type) {
|
||||
case int:
|
||||
formattedPaths = append(formattedPaths, fmt.Sprintf(`[%d]`, p))
|
||||
default:
|
||||
if i != len(failurePath)-1 {
|
||||
formattedPaths = append(formattedPaths, ".")
|
||||
}
|
||||
formattedPaths = append(formattedPaths, fmt.Sprintf(`"%s"`, p))
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return strings.Join(formattedPaths, "")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func deepEqual(a interface{}, b interface{}) (bool, []interface{}) {
|
||||
var errorPath []interface{}
|
||||
if reflect.TypeOf(a) != reflect.TypeOf(b) {
|
||||
return false, errorPath
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch a.(type) {
|
||||
case []interface{}:
|
||||
if len(a.([]interface{})) != len(b.([]interface{})) {
|
||||
return false, errorPath
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for i, v := range a.([]interface{}) {
|
||||
elementEqual, keyPath := deepEqual(v, b.([]interface{})[i])
|
||||
if !elementEqual {
|
||||
return false, append(keyPath, i)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, errorPath
|
||||
|
||||
case map[interface{}]interface{}:
|
||||
if len(a.(map[interface{}]interface{})) != len(b.(map[interface{}]interface{})) {
|
||||
return false, errorPath
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for k, v1 := range a.(map[interface{}]interface{}) {
|
||||
v2, ok := b.(map[interface{}]interface{})[k]
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, errorPath
|
||||
}
|
||||
elementEqual, keyPath := deepEqual(v1, v2)
|
||||
if !elementEqual {
|
||||
return false, append(keyPath, k)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, errorPath
|
||||
|
||||
case map[string]interface{}:
|
||||
if len(a.(map[string]interface{})) != len(b.(map[string]interface{})) {
|
||||
return false, errorPath
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for k, v1 := range a.(map[string]interface{}) {
|
||||
v2, ok := b.(map[string]interface{})[k]
|
||||
if !ok {
|
||||
return false, errorPath
|
||||
}
|
||||
elementEqual, keyPath := deepEqual(v1, v2)
|
||||
if !elementEqual {
|
||||
return false, append(keyPath, k)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
return true, errorPath
|
||||
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return a == b, errorPath
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
33
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/succeed_matcher.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/format"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type SucceedMatcher struct {
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *SucceedMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error) {
|
||||
// is purely nil?
|
||||
if actual == nil {
|
||||
return true, nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// must be an 'error' type
|
||||
if !isError(actual) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Expected an error-type. Got:\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// must be nil (or a pointer to a nil)
|
||||
return isNil(actual), nil
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *SucceedMatcher) FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return fmt.Sprintf("Expected success, but got an error:\n%s\n%s", format.Object(actual, 1), format.IndentString(actual.(error).Error(), 1))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (matcher *SucceedMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return "Expected failure, but got no error."
|
||||
}
|
41
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/bipartitegraph/bipartitegraph.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
package bipartitegraph
|
||||
|
||||
import "errors"
|
||||
import "fmt"
|
||||
|
||||
import . "github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/node"
|
||||
import . "github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/edge"
|
||||
|
||||
type BipartiteGraph struct {
|
||||
Left NodeOrderedSet
|
||||
Right NodeOrderedSet
|
||||
Edges EdgeSet
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func NewBipartiteGraph(leftValues, rightValues []interface{}, neighbours func(interface{}, interface{}) (bool, error)) (*BipartiteGraph, error) {
|
||||
left := NodeOrderedSet{}
|
||||
for i := range leftValues {
|
||||
left = append(left, Node{Id: i})
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
right := NodeOrderedSet{}
|
||||
for j := range rightValues {
|
||||
right = append(right, Node{Id: j + len(left)})
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
edges := EdgeSet{}
|
||||
for i, leftValue := range leftValues {
|
||||
for j, rightValue := range rightValues {
|
||||
neighbours, err := neighbours(leftValue, rightValue)
|
||||
if err != nil {
|
||||
return nil, errors.New(fmt.Sprintf("error determining adjacency for %v and %v: %s", leftValue, rightValue, err.Error()))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if neighbours {
|
||||
edges = append(edges, Edge{Node1: left[i], Node2: right[j]})
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return &BipartiteGraph{left, right, edges}, nil
|
||||
}
|
159
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/bipartitegraph/bipartitegraphmatching.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
|
||||
package bipartitegraph
|
||||
|
||||
import . "github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/node"
|
||||
import . "github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/edge"
|
||||
import "github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/util"
|
||||
|
||||
func (bg *BipartiteGraph) LargestMatching() (matching EdgeSet) {
|
||||
paths := bg.maximalDisjointSLAPCollection(matching)
|
||||
|
||||
for len(paths) > 0 {
|
||||
for _, path := range paths {
|
||||
matching = matching.SymmetricDifference(path)
|
||||
}
|
||||
paths = bg.maximalDisjointSLAPCollection(matching)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (bg *BipartiteGraph) maximalDisjointSLAPCollection(matching EdgeSet) (result []EdgeSet) {
|
||||
guideLayers := bg.createSLAPGuideLayers(matching)
|
||||
if len(guideLayers) == 0 {
|
||||
return
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
used := make(map[Node]bool)
|
||||
|
||||
for _, u := range guideLayers[len(guideLayers)-1] {
|
||||
slap, found := bg.findDisjointSLAP(u, matching, guideLayers, used)
|
||||
if found {
|
||||
for _, edge := range slap {
|
||||
used[edge.Node1] = true
|
||||
used[edge.Node2] = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
result = append(result, slap)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (bg *BipartiteGraph) findDisjointSLAP(
|
||||
start Node,
|
||||
matching EdgeSet,
|
||||
guideLayers []NodeOrderedSet,
|
||||
used map[Node]bool,
|
||||
) ([]Edge, bool) {
|
||||
return bg.findDisjointSLAPHelper(start, EdgeSet{}, len(guideLayers)-1, matching, guideLayers, used)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (bg *BipartiteGraph) findDisjointSLAPHelper(
|
||||
currentNode Node,
|
||||
currentSLAP EdgeSet,
|
||||
currentLevel int,
|
||||
matching EdgeSet,
|
||||
guideLayers []NodeOrderedSet,
|
||||
used map[Node]bool,
|
||||
) (EdgeSet, bool) {
|
||||
used[currentNode] = true
|
||||
|
||||
if currentLevel == 0 {
|
||||
return currentSLAP, true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for _, nextNode := range guideLayers[currentLevel-1] {
|
||||
if used[nextNode] {
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
edge, found := bg.Edges.FindByNodes(currentNode, nextNode)
|
||||
if !found {
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if matching.Contains(edge) == util.Odd(currentLevel) {
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
currentSLAP = append(currentSLAP, edge)
|
||||
slap, found := bg.findDisjointSLAPHelper(nextNode, currentSLAP, currentLevel-1, matching, guideLayers, used)
|
||||
if found {
|
||||
return slap, true
|
||||
}
|
||||
currentSLAP = currentSLAP[:len(currentSLAP)-1]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
used[currentNode] = false
|
||||
return nil, false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (bg *BipartiteGraph) createSLAPGuideLayers(matching EdgeSet) (guideLayers []NodeOrderedSet) {
|
||||
used := make(map[Node]bool)
|
||||
currentLayer := NodeOrderedSet{}
|
||||
|
||||
for _, node := range bg.Left {
|
||||
if matching.Free(node) {
|
||||
used[node] = true
|
||||
currentLayer = append(currentLayer, node)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if len(currentLayer) == 0 {
|
||||
return []NodeOrderedSet{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
guideLayers = append(guideLayers, currentLayer)
|
||||
|
||||
done := false
|
||||
|
||||
for !done {
|
||||
lastLayer := currentLayer
|
||||
currentLayer = NodeOrderedSet{}
|
||||
|
||||
if util.Odd(len(guideLayers)) {
|
||||
for _, leftNode := range lastLayer {
|
||||
for _, rightNode := range bg.Right {
|
||||
if used[rightNode] {
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
edge, found := bg.Edges.FindByNodes(leftNode, rightNode)
|
||||
if !found || matching.Contains(edge) {
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
currentLayer = append(currentLayer, rightNode)
|
||||
used[rightNode] = true
|
||||
|
||||
if matching.Free(rightNode) {
|
||||
done = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
for _, rightNode := range lastLayer {
|
||||
for _, leftNode := range bg.Left {
|
||||
if used[leftNode] {
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
edge, found := bg.Edges.FindByNodes(leftNode, rightNode)
|
||||
if !found || !matching.Contains(edge) {
|
||||
continue
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
currentLayer = append(currentLayer, leftNode)
|
||||
used[leftNode] = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if len(currentLayer) == 0 {
|
||||
return []NodeOrderedSet{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
guideLayers = append(guideLayers, currentLayer)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return
|
||||
}
|
61
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/edge/edge.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
||||
package edge
|
||||
|
||||
import . "github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/node"
|
||||
|
||||
type Edge struct {
|
||||
Node1 Node
|
||||
Node2 Node
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type EdgeSet []Edge
|
||||
|
||||
func (ec EdgeSet) Free(node Node) bool {
|
||||
for _, e := range ec {
|
||||
if e.Node1 == node || e.Node2 == node {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (ec EdgeSet) Contains(edge Edge) bool {
|
||||
for _, e := range ec {
|
||||
if e == edge {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (ec EdgeSet) FindByNodes(node1, node2 Node) (Edge, bool) {
|
||||
for _, e := range ec {
|
||||
if (e.Node1 == node1 && e.Node2 == node2) || (e.Node1 == node2 && e.Node2 == node1) {
|
||||
return e, true
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return Edge{}, false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (ec EdgeSet) SymmetricDifference(ec2 EdgeSet) EdgeSet {
|
||||
edgesToInclude := make(map[Edge]bool)
|
||||
|
||||
for _, e := range ec {
|
||||
edgesToInclude[e] = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
for _, e := range ec2 {
|
||||
edgesToInclude[e] = !edgesToInclude[e]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
result := EdgeSet{}
|
||||
for e, include := range edgesToInclude {
|
||||
if include {
|
||||
result = append(result, e)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return result
|
||||
}
|
7
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/node/node.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
|
||||
package node
|
||||
|
||||
type Node struct {
|
||||
Id int
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type NodeOrderedSet []Node
|
7
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/support/goraph/util/util.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
|
||||
package util
|
||||
|
||||
import "math"
|
||||
|
||||
func Odd(n int) bool {
|
||||
return math.Mod(float64(n), 2.0) == 1.0
|
||||
}
|
179
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/type_support.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
|
||||
/*
|
||||
Gomega matchers
|
||||
|
||||
This package implements the Gomega matchers and does not typically need to be imported.
|
||||
See the docs for Gomega for documentation on the matchers
|
||||
|
||||
http://onsi.github.io/gomega/
|
||||
*/
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"encoding/json"
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type omegaMatcher interface {
|
||||
Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error)
|
||||
FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string)
|
||||
NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isBool(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
return reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() == reflect.Bool
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isNumber(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if a == nil {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
kind := reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind()
|
||||
return reflect.Int <= kind && kind <= reflect.Float64
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isInteger(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
kind := reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind()
|
||||
return reflect.Int <= kind && kind <= reflect.Int64
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isUnsignedInteger(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
kind := reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind()
|
||||
return reflect.Uint <= kind && kind <= reflect.Uint64
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isFloat(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
kind := reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind()
|
||||
return reflect.Float32 <= kind && kind <= reflect.Float64
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func toInteger(a interface{}) int64 {
|
||||
if isInteger(a) {
|
||||
return reflect.ValueOf(a).Int()
|
||||
} else if isUnsignedInteger(a) {
|
||||
return int64(reflect.ValueOf(a).Uint())
|
||||
} else if isFloat(a) {
|
||||
return int64(reflect.ValueOf(a).Float())
|
||||
}
|
||||
panic(fmt.Sprintf("Expected a number! Got <%T> %#v", a, a))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func toUnsignedInteger(a interface{}) uint64 {
|
||||
if isInteger(a) {
|
||||
return uint64(reflect.ValueOf(a).Int())
|
||||
} else if isUnsignedInteger(a) {
|
||||
return reflect.ValueOf(a).Uint()
|
||||
} else if isFloat(a) {
|
||||
return uint64(reflect.ValueOf(a).Float())
|
||||
}
|
||||
panic(fmt.Sprintf("Expected a number! Got <%T> %#v", a, a))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func toFloat(a interface{}) float64 {
|
||||
if isInteger(a) {
|
||||
return float64(reflect.ValueOf(a).Int())
|
||||
} else if isUnsignedInteger(a) {
|
||||
return float64(reflect.ValueOf(a).Uint())
|
||||
} else if isFloat(a) {
|
||||
return reflect.ValueOf(a).Float()
|
||||
}
|
||||
panic(fmt.Sprintf("Expected a number! Got <%T> %#v", a, a))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isError(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
_, ok := a.(error)
|
||||
return ok
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isChan(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if isNil(a) {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
return reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() == reflect.Chan
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isMap(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if a == nil {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
return reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() == reflect.Map
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isArrayOrSlice(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if a == nil {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
switch reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() {
|
||||
case reflect.Array, reflect.Slice:
|
||||
return true
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isString(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if a == nil {
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
||||
return reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() == reflect.String
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func toString(a interface{}) (string, bool) {
|
||||
aString, isString := a.(string)
|
||||
if isString {
|
||||
return aString, true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
aBytes, isBytes := a.([]byte)
|
||||
if isBytes {
|
||||
return string(aBytes), true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
aStringer, isStringer := a.(fmt.Stringer)
|
||||
if isStringer {
|
||||
return aStringer.String(), true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
aJSONRawMessage, isJSONRawMessage := a.(json.RawMessage)
|
||||
if isJSONRawMessage {
|
||||
return string(aJSONRawMessage), true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return "", false
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func lengthOf(a interface{}) (int, bool) {
|
||||
if a == nil {
|
||||
return 0, false
|
||||
}
|
||||
switch reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() {
|
||||
case reflect.Map, reflect.Array, reflect.String, reflect.Chan, reflect.Slice:
|
||||
return reflect.ValueOf(a).Len(), true
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return 0, false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
func capOf(a interface{}) (int, bool) {
|
||||
if a == nil {
|
||||
return 0, false
|
||||
}
|
||||
switch reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() {
|
||||
case reflect.Array, reflect.Chan, reflect.Slice:
|
||||
return reflect.ValueOf(a).Cap(), true
|
||||
default:
|
||||
return 0, false
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func isNil(a interface{}) bool {
|
||||
if a == nil {
|
||||
return true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch reflect.TypeOf(a).Kind() {
|
||||
case reflect.Chan, reflect.Func, reflect.Interface, reflect.Map, reflect.Ptr, reflect.Slice:
|
||||
return reflect.ValueOf(a).IsNil()
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return false
|
||||
}
|
72
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/matchers/with_transform.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
||||
package matchers
|
||||
|
||||
import (
|
||||
"fmt"
|
||||
"reflect"
|
||||
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/internal/oraclematcher"
|
||||
"github.com/onsi/gomega/types"
|
||||
)
|
||||
|
||||
type WithTransformMatcher struct {
|
||||
// input
|
||||
Transform interface{} // must be a function of one parameter that returns one value
|
||||
Matcher types.GomegaMatcher
|
||||
|
||||
// cached value
|
||||
transformArgType reflect.Type
|
||||
|
||||
// state
|
||||
transformedValue interface{}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func NewWithTransformMatcher(transform interface{}, matcher types.GomegaMatcher) *WithTransformMatcher {
|
||||
if transform == nil {
|
||||
panic("transform function cannot be nil")
|
||||
}
|
||||
txType := reflect.TypeOf(transform)
|
||||
if txType.NumIn() != 1 {
|
||||
panic("transform function must have 1 argument")
|
||||
}
|
||||
if txType.NumOut() != 1 {
|
||||
panic("transform function must have 1 return value")
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return &WithTransformMatcher{
|
||||
Transform: transform,
|
||||
Matcher: matcher,
|
||||
transformArgType: reflect.TypeOf(transform).In(0),
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *WithTransformMatcher) Match(actual interface{}) (bool, error) {
|
||||
// return error if actual's type is incompatible with Transform function's argument type
|
||||
actualType := reflect.TypeOf(actual)
|
||||
if !actualType.AssignableTo(m.transformArgType) {
|
||||
return false, fmt.Errorf("Transform function expects '%s' but we have '%s'", m.transformArgType, actualType)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// call the Transform function with `actual`
|
||||
fn := reflect.ValueOf(m.Transform)
|
||||
result := fn.Call([]reflect.Value{reflect.ValueOf(actual)})
|
||||
m.transformedValue = result[0].Interface() // expect exactly one value
|
||||
|
||||
return m.Matcher.Match(m.transformedValue)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *WithTransformMatcher) FailureMessage(_ interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return m.Matcher.FailureMessage(m.transformedValue)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *WithTransformMatcher) NegatedFailureMessage(_ interface{}) (message string) {
|
||||
return m.Matcher.NegatedFailureMessage(m.transformedValue)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
func (m *WithTransformMatcher) MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(_ interface{}) bool {
|
||||
// TODO: Maybe this should always just return true? (Only an issue for non-deterministic transformers.)
|
||||
//
|
||||
// Querying the next matcher is fine if the transformer always will return the same value.
|
||||
// But if the transformer is non-deterministic and returns a different value each time, then there
|
||||
// is no point in querying the next matcher, since it can only comment on the last transformed value.
|
||||
return oraclematcher.MatchMayChangeInTheFuture(m.Matcher, m.transformedValue)
|
||||
}
|
26
vendor/github.com/onsi/gomega/types/types.go
generated
vendored
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
package types
|
||||
|
||||
type TWithHelper interface {
|
||||
Helper()
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
type GomegaFailHandler func(message string, callerSkip ...int)
|
||||
|
||||
type GomegaFailWrapper struct {
|
||||
Fail GomegaFailHandler
|
||||
TWithHelper TWithHelper
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//A simple *testing.T interface wrapper
|
||||
type GomegaTestingT interface {
|
||||
Fatalf(format string, args ...interface{})
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
//All Gomega matchers must implement the GomegaMatcher interface
|
||||
//
|
||||
//For details on writing custom matchers, check out: http://onsi.github.io/gomega/#adding-your-own-matchers
|
||||
type GomegaMatcher interface {
|
||||
Match(actual interface{}) (success bool, err error)
|
||||
FailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string)
|
||||
NegatedFailureMessage(actual interface{}) (message string)
|
||||
}
|
I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a
NodeIterator
initialized withmake([]byte, 0)
enables us to track down deletions while initializing it withmake([]byte{})
yields creations.I'm wondering if there's a way to use variable naming to help reveal what's happening here. I might just be being dense but I'm having trouble understanding why a
NodeIterator
initialized withmake([]byte, 0)
enables us to track down deletions while initializing it withmake([]byte{})
yields creations.I may be missing something but it looks like the
creation
arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls ofbuildDiffEventual
), so we may be able to remove itI may be missing something but it looks like the
creation
arg is unused (and I think that's true all the way up to the calls ofbuildDiffEventual
), so we may be able to remove itYep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
Yep, nice catch. Previously we were storing the old value and the new value of each diff, and whether the account was created/deleted affected which value was used as the old. But since removing the old values, we shouldn't need that bool anymore. 🎉
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between
make(byte[], 0)
and[]byte{}
was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to
collectDiffNodes
- where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?
That's a great point, this is confusing. The gist of it is that we're creating iterators from the old and new tries, and when we're creating the iterators we're passing in a starting key, which I think can just be 0. The difference between
make(byte[], 0)
and[]byte{}
was inadvertent, so I'll switch them both to be the same for consistency.The difference between whether we'e tracking down deletions vs creations is in the order that we're passing the iterators to
collectDiffNodes
- where we're either finding nodes in the old trie that aren't in the new trie (deletions) or nodes in the new trie that we're in the old (creations).I feel like there's a way to make this a bit more readable, but it hasn't come to me. Do you have any ideas?