Skip to content
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

core: differentiate receipt concensus and storage decoding #1857

Conversation

karalabe
Copy link
Member

This PR contains the necessary modifications to make Receipts and Logs transferable over the network. Previously the decoders always expected a full storage version, which obviously won't happen over the network, so we need to explicitly decode database contents as storage receipts/logs, and leave the plain receipts/logs to decode as only the consensus fields.

@robotally
Copy link

Vote Count Reviewers
👍 0
👎 0

Updated: Thu Oct 8 08:52:02 UTC 2015

@karalabe
Copy link
Member Author

@obscuren @fjl @Gustav-Simonsson Please take a close look at this.

@karalabe karalabe added the core label Sep 29, 2015
}

type Logs []*Log

// LogForStorage is a wrapper around a Log that flattens and parses the entire
// content of a log, opposed to only the consensus fields originally (by hiding

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should probably be as opposed to

@obscuren
Copy link
Contributor

obscuren commented Oct 7, 2015

@karalabe rebase please

@karalabe
Copy link
Member Author

karalabe commented Oct 8, 2015

Not really worth it. This code is already contained within the fast sync PR, but it already diverged a bit from that due to originally conflicting when rebasing on the old develop. Rebasing would just add a lot more conflicts down the line to the fast sync. As I'm very close to finalizing the fast sync PR, I'll just close this and merge this code along with the remaining things from #1839.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants