-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 214
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
Turn on rest binary calculation tests #3360
Turn on rest binary calculation tests #3360
Conversation
case era of | ||
ShelleyBasedEraAlonzo -> | ||
slimCBOR eraSerializedCBOR |
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.
Is it not saner to also add Alonzo-specific expected values in your case expressions above, like you already have for Babbage?
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.
In fact, the Alonzo and Babbage binaries are the same, no? I haven't run and tested, but it looks like IntersectMBO/cardano-ledger#2863 should have affected Alonzo as well.
Then having the same expected value for Alonzo and Babbage sounds much easier, and you could still keep your comment explaining the difference.
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.
thanks Johannes for your look. I tend to agree and now we have binary rep for Babbage, Alonzo and the rest. There are differences between all of them. I added the comment illustrating the point in the relevant test:
1421 -- Up till Mary era we have the following structure of transaction
1422 -- transaction =
1423 -- [ transaction_body
1424 -- , transaction_witness_set
1425 -- , auxiliary_data / null
1426 -- ]
1427 -- So we begin with 3-element array binary prefix, that is encoded as '83'
1428 -- From Alonzo on tx was enriched for isValid field making it
1429 -- 4-element array that is encoded as '84'.
1430 -- transaction =
1431 -- [ transaction_body
1432 -- , transaction_witness_set
1433 -- , bool
1434 -- , auxiliary_data / null
1435 -- ]
1436 -- Alonzo transaction stil has the same binary representation (array)
1437 -- for transaction outputs like in the previous eras.
1438 -- Babbage era changes this representation, and introduces map binary
1439 -- representation for transaction outputs as the contept of them is
1440 -- extended in this era.
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.
Ah ok so they are different after all 👌
2306c98
to
08fda96
Compare
-- Alonzo transaction stil has the same binary representation (array) | ||
-- for transaction outputs like in the previous eras. | ||
-- Babbage era changes this representation, and introduces map binary | ||
-- representation for transaction outputs as the contept of them is |
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.
-- representation for transaction outputs as the contept of them is | |
-- representation for transaction outputs as the concept of them is |
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.
done
case era of | ||
ShelleyBasedEraAlonzo -> | ||
slimCBOR eraSerializedCBOR |
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.
Ah ok so they are different after all 👌
bors r+ |
Build succeeded: |
Comments
Issue Number
adp-1885