-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
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
Interpreting for basic attachment operations #2113
Interpreting for basic attachment operations #2113
Conversation
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
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.
This is very much still a draft; need a lot more tests before I am comfortable with this, but I wanted to put it up for preliminary feedback on the methodology.
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
runtime/interpreter/value.go
Outdated
interpreter.SharedState.inAttachmentIteration[v] = struct{}{} | ||
defer delete(interpreter.SharedState.inAttachmentIteration, v) |
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.
Every time we enter an iteration over a composite's attachment we store that composite in this set, and remove it when we're done. This can't just be a bool
like the storage iteration because we only want to restrict mutations of this specific composite's attachments, not all attachments generally.
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
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.
Great work!
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
…low/cadence into sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
CI is broken because of the automatic base branch change (GitHub bug), merging master should fix it and retrigger CI |
…sainati/attachment-declaration-interpreting
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## feature/attachments #2113 +/- ##
=======================================================
+ Coverage 77.75% 77.87% +0.12%
=======================================================
Files 312 313 +1
Lines 66251 66529 +278
=======================================================
+ Hits 51513 51811 +298
+ Misses 12948 12924 -24
- Partials 1790 1794 +4
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
Cadence Benchstat comparisonThis branch with compared with the base branch onflow:feature/attachments commit 3abda1a Collapsed results for better readability
|
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.
Great work! 👏
Part of #357 and #2062
This implements runtime semantics for attaching, accessing and removing attachments
master
branchFiles changed
in the Github PR explorer