-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
Fix GetAsOf() for commitment , so that it handles dereferencing
#17687
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5493ae8
remove early returnin GetAsOf() for commitment
antonis19 924e2f2
add more test cases for historical proofs
antonis19 f8a7a62
group variable declarations
antonis19 c22fc36
fix comments
antonis19 a99042a
special handling of GetAsOf for commitment
antonis19 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
please move
!okas first condition - it just almost slit from me when i started CRThere 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.
but with
!ok && commitmentDomainit looks cleaner. Also you have to make sure[Commitment].GetAsOfreturnsnil, falseright before domain reading with proper comment about branch plain keys dereferencing bad reads protection.Currently this fix wount work -
OK=truein case of successful reading from commtiment domain - value will contain references and this fallback will not take placeThere 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 thought the theory was that that when
[Commitment].GetAsOf()returnsnil, falsethen we fall back tofunc (at *AggregatorRoTx) GetLatest(). I already put back this code inDomainRoTx.GetAsOf():Are you saying that if
Commitment].GetAsOf()returnsok = truefrom history, that still needs special handling???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.
yes indeed that was introduced way ago 0774823
no problem then