Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

push task_state as QuorumProposalRecv task state into helper function… #3758

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 15, 2024

Conversation

pls148
Copy link
Contributor

@pls148 pls148 commented Oct 14, 2024

…s, rename consensus2

Closes #3640

This PR:

Finishes the rest of #3640 by pushing task_state into helper functions instead of copying the component parts; this is no longer necessary as consensus has been removed in lieu of consensus2. Also renames consensus2->consensus, and cleans up some other bits of code.

This PR does not:

Key places to review:

In particular, check over the functions update_view and handle_quorum_proposal_recv. In at least one case, I was worried that a local copy of a mutable reference var was being copied locally to allow changing the pointed-to value while being able to access the previous value. I believe I got this correct but want an extra set of eyes to check it.

Copy link
Contributor

@ss-es ss-es left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good to me.

as far as I can tell, the cur_view: &mut ... -> task_state.cur_view: &mut ... replacement should not change the semantics of anything (and I feel like CI would've caught it if it did)

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ pub struct TestView {
pub da_certificate: DaCertificate<TestTypes>,
pub transactions: Vec<TestTransaction>,
upgrade_data: Option<UpgradeProposalData<TestTypes>>,
pub formed_upgrade_certificate: Option<UpgradeCertificate<TestTypes>>,
formed_upgrade_certificate: Option<UpgradeCertificate<TestTypes>>,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

was this intentional? (not that it matters either way)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah this reverted us making that pub when we were playing around with the tests that ended up getting removed by the previous PR

@pls148 pls148 merged commit 20910cb into main Oct 15, 2024
24 checks passed
@pls148 pls148 deleted the ps/3640-B branch October 15, 2024 17:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[CX_HARDENING] - Delete Legacy Consensus
5 participants