You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 14, 2023. It is now read-only.
Now that we have done #80 we always have a full tx whenever we have a txid in the SparseChain. In #74 we started enforcing that txs in ChainGraph don't double spend each other but only in determine_changeset. We are inconsistent about this though. We don't do it in insert_tx for example. This is an issue to discuss whether we want to do this across the whole structure. If we are not going to always enforcing it then we shouldn't just do it in determine_changeset. We should have a separate method like determine_changeset_evict_conflicts that does determine_changeset.
My preference is to keep it consistent across the whole structure.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
My preference is to keep it consistent across the whole structure.
+1 on this.. This makes reasoning over the structure easier and less chance to screw up by the API.. IMO we should maintain all the invariant consistently across the API..
Now that we have done #80 we always have a full tx whenever we have a txid in the
SparseChain
. In #74 we started enforcing that txs inChainGraph
don't double spend each other but only indetermine_changeset
. We are inconsistent about this though. We don't do it ininsert_tx
for example. This is an issue to discuss whether we want to do this across the whole structure. If we are not going to always enforcing it then we shouldn't just do it indetermine_changeset
. We should have a separate method likedetermine_changeset_evict_conflicts
that doesdetermine_changeset
.My preference is to keep it consistent across the whole structure.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: