Pruning Fixes #666
Merged
Pruning Fixes #666
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We are returning deleted and remaining as num roots instead of num bytes. It should be number of bytes to be consistent with ContractPrunableData which returns the amount of prunable data in bytes. We're also recording spending in defer which I think is causing faulty updates of the contract's revision number/filesize in case an error occurs. Since the recorder has batching there's no reason not to record the spend in every iteration.
This should get rid of the following error we were seeing in the integrity checks: