This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 26, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
feat: replace legacyInstamine option with
instamine=eager|strict
#2013feat: replace legacyInstamine option with
instamine=eager|strict
#2013Changes from all commits
35be9aa
f81314a
864a882
ead0996
3bce76d
7d6438a
1f555a2
17be732
e355e5d
9e33e4a
337e637
1085ddc
e5d966e
f0c26ff
429d3ad
50ca402
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
(prettier change)
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.
It turns out this was broken in
greedy
mode!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.
what is broken?
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.
The delay wasn't working. Our existing tests caught it when I switched the default.
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.
(prettier change)
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.
We don't need to wait because
evm_mine
andminer_start
wait on their own.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.
If you feel it necessary to explain this in the review it likely belongs as a comment in the code.
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.
It explains why the old code was removed.
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.
I'm actually having to revisit this because I noticed if someone sends stops the miner via miner_stop, send enough transactions to fill two blocks, then calls
miner_start
, all pending transactions aren't mined beforeminer_start
returns... which is what we want.I think
evm_mine
suffers from a similar issue, but I haven't yet figured out what yet.These issues might be rare enough that I can wait until after v7 stable to fix them, as it might take a bit of refactoring to get the timings correct.
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.
(prettier change)