stronger assertions on reconciliation for fast liq #1342
Merged
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
LayneHaber
requested review from
rhlsthrm,
wanglonghong,
jakekidd and
liu-zhipeng
rhlsthrm
approved these changes
Jun 2, 2022
liu-zhipeng
approved these changes
Jun 2, 2022
wanglonghong
requested changes
Jun 2, 2022
wanglonghong
approved these changes
Jun 2, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
_executeSanityCheckswere not asserting that there should be 0 routers when fast executing. Instead, they were only asserting that if you were slow executing there would be no routers.Type of change
High-level change(s) description - from the user's perspective
Related Issue(s)
I'm so sorry alex i didn't make an issue but it's like 2 lines of code forgive me
Related pull request(s)