Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
[Merged by Bors] - Optimize searching for positioning ATX #5952
[Merged by Bors] - Optimize searching for positioning ATX #5952
Changes from 1 commit
5d77f35
7a599e7
ca7c7b1
32b4a96
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Check warning on line 541 in activation/activation.go
Codecov / codecov/patch
activation/activation.go#L541
Check warning on line 561 in activation/activation.go
Codecov / codecov/patch
activation/activation.go#L561
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 am not sure if this check is necessary? If we have a previous ATX and the search found something then this will always be the previous ATX or one with a higher
TickHeight
, won't it be? I get the intention of preferring one's own ATX in the case that the candidate is a different ATX with the exact sameTickHeight
but I don't think that this is strictly advantageous? Thecandidate
has already been verified to be valid.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.
The search in
atxsdata
doesn't prefer own ATXs - it picks the first of the highest randomly. The check here ensures we pick our own ATX.The only advantage I see is that it's "less risky" to refer to something created by self. The existing code does the same and I wanted to keep the functionality unchanged.
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.
only in the case of a tie. Even if the node decided
candidate
is valid although it isn't this has no impact on ATXs that use it as a positioning ATX. As long as it is syntactically valid it can be referenced even if malfeasant. It has to be like this or marking an identity as malfeasant would cause everyone who referenced them (directly or indirectly) to fail validation of their published ATXs.I'm not blocking the merge of this PR because of this, just making sure we are on the same page 🙂