-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 680
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
remove transitional code wrt executor parameters #2112
remove transitional code wrt executor parameters #2112
Conversation
Well done, it's definitely a legit change, as the executor params have been on Polkadot for a long time already... I'm just asking myself if, for the sake of paranoia, it needs a burn-in prior to merging. I'll ask fellows if we have the capacity for that. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see any reason for a burn in. In general I have to say that the runtime api returns an Option
was not a very good idea here. As we actually expect that this always returns something...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually this implementation is broken for chains that start from genesis. We should keep the current code. We should just remove the comment. As I said above, this runtime api function should never have returned an option..
Why? TBH, I didn't test that, but currently, we should bootstrap session zero executor parameters from |
The executor parameters are side-data for |
There is no code that does this. At least I couldn't find it? |
This one:
|
Ahh yeah, that is actually executed on genesis. Then sorry! |
Maybe a Result, but that wouldn't change that much probably. I mean we could then have at least covered the case where the session was already pruned. (but you could only have guessed what the parameters were back then) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Approving based on the discussion above.
I've replaced the code with the comment suggestion, @s0me0ne-unkn0wn.
Closes #714