feat: concurrent recheckTx #52
Conversation
# Conflicts: # baseapp/baseapp.go
baseapp/accountwgs.go
Outdated
| return waits, signals | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (aw *AccountWGs) Waits(waits []*sync.WaitGroup) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
<This does not need to be modified now, but it is recorded for reference at a later release review.>
It is a little strange to use a third-person verb for a function name. WaitAll would be better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree on your opinion. I think just Wait is better. HDYT?
| req.tx, req.err = app.preCheckTx(req.txBytes) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (app *BaseApp) checkTxAsync(req *RequestCheckTxAsync, waits []*sync.WaitGroup, signals []*AccountWG) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
<This does not need to be modified now, but it is recorded for reference at a later release review.>
Since this function itself does not run asynchronously, it would be better to remove async from the function name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's proper name. It calls callback so it's a async function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
revised at cc6f354
| sdkerrors "github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/types/errors" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| func (app *BaseApp) startReactors() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
<This does not need to be modified now, but it is recorded for reference at a later release review.>
Since there is only one reactor, I think startReactor is better
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I intend to add another reactor, deliver tx, so I named it as startReactors first.
* chore: simply implement abci.`CheckTxSync()` and abci.`CheckTxAsync()` * chore: move `accountLock` from `anteTx()` to `checkTxWithLock()` * feat: impl `abci.CheckTxAsync()` with reactor # Conflicts: # baseapp/baseapp.go * feat: impl `accountwgs` * feat: impl `accountwgs_test` * chore: revise code after cherry-pick * chore: bump-up tendermint & iavl * chore: rename func from `startCheckTxAsyncReactor()` to `checkTxAsyncReactor()` * fix: imports for lint * fix: imports for lint * chore: rename `Waits()` to `Wait()` # Conflicts: # baseapp/abci.go # baseapp/accountlock.go # baseapp/accountwgs_test.go # baseapp/baseapp.go # baseapp/baseapp_test.go # go.mod # go.sum
* chore: bump up ostracon * feat: concurrent recheckTx (#52) * chore: simply implement abci.`CheckTxSync()` and abci.`CheckTxAsync()` * chore: move `accountLock` from `anteTx()` to `checkTxWithLock()` * feat: impl `abci.CheckTxAsync()` with reactor # Conflicts: # baseapp/baseapp.go * feat: impl `accountwgs` * feat: impl `accountwgs_test` * chore: revise code after cherry-pick * chore: bump-up tendermint & iavl * chore: rename func from `startCheckTxAsyncReactor()` to `checkTxAsyncReactor()` * fix: imports for lint * fix: imports for lint * chore: rename `Waits()` to `Wait()` # Conflicts: # baseapp/abci.go # baseapp/accountlock.go # baseapp/accountwgs_test.go # baseapp/baseapp.go # baseapp/baseapp_test.go # go.mod # go.sum * fix: add a tag, `goleveldb`, to `test_cover.sh`
Related with: https://github.com/line/link/issues/1152, Finschia/ostracon#163, Finschia/ostracon#168, Finschia/ostracon#169
Description
To optimize performance, we need to increase concurrency. After implementing concurrent checkTx(#49), I'd like to implement concurrent recheckTx.
Motivation and context
How has this been tested?
Checklist: