♻️ Refactor ProposeGenesisBlock()
#3079
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
greymistcube
force-pushed
the
refactor/block-propose
branch
from
58d9e39
to
e955fd0
Compare
greymistcube
force-pushed
the
refactor/block-propose
branch
from
1067737
to
7985457
Compare
OnedgeLee
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In general, made
ProposeGenesisBlock()accept a list ofTransaction<T>s instead of a list of custom actions and system actions.Notable "feature" changes due to this are:
ProposeGenesisBlock()is more generic than before.Transaction<T>s in a genesisBlock<T>may have different signers. Also the caller now has more control over ordering ofIActions to include.ProposeGenesisBlock()can now produce a genesisBlock<T>that is not suitable forBlockChain<T>.Create(). This can happen if providedTransaction<T>s are invalid for "appending" (i.e. wrong nonces).I'll be dealing with #3078 in a follow-up PR as it seems a bit more complicated than it originally seemed. 🙄