-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
fix: Adjust block access service to be correct without workarounds #1147
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
Conversation
19f50f4
to
c045b0f
Compare
c045b0f
to
1cfcf70
Compare
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.
1st pass looks looks good on simplifying the logic
protobuf/src/main/proto/org/hiero/block/api/block_access_service.proto
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
protobuf/src/main/proto/org/hiero/block/api/block_access_service.proto
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
1cfcf70
to
0f0a1c9
Compare
* Modified the proto definition to remove unverified and prevent calling with both latest and a block number. * Added an "invalid" response and removed the verified/unverified responses * Removed unnecessary prefixes in the response enum names * Removed check for both fields set in Java (it's no longer possible). * Fixed up all references * Removed tests that set both fields as it's no longer possible (the last one set is the only one set). Signed-off-by: Joseph S <121976561+jsync-swirlds@users.noreply.github.com>
0f0a1c9
to
9feb19c
Compare
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.
LG
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.
LGTM
fun fact:
you can actually request the latest block either way:
{
"retrieve_latest": true
}
{
"block_number": "18446744073709551615"
}
Yes, I thought it might smooth the change if either works. We can always make the small change so it only works with the flag set in a later update. |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (45.45%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1147 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 84.48% 84.66% +0.18%
+ Complexity 919 915 -4
============================================
Files 104 104
Lines 3725 3717 -8
Branches 400 398 -2
============================================
Hits 3147 3147
+ Misses 427 418 -9
- Partials 151 152 +1
... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
…1147) Signed-off-by: Joseph S <121976561+jsync-swirlds@users.noreply.github.com>
…1147) Signed-off-by: Joseph S <121976561+jsync-swirlds@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Alfredo Gutierrez Grajeda <alfredo@hashgraph.com>
…and final RC version. (#1153) Signed-off-by: Joseph S <121976561+jsync-swirlds@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Alfredo Gutierrez Grajeda <alfredo@hashgraph.com> Co-authored-by: Joseph S <121976561+jsync-swirlds@users.noreply.github.com>
Reviewer Notes
Related Issue(s)
Fixes #1148