Skip to content

Conversation

@AnnaShaleva
Copy link
Member

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva commented Feb 19, 2024

Two parts of dBFT structure refactoring: close #90, close #91.

TODO:

  • Improve documentation.
  • Move all default implementations to testing code or separate place.
  • Update changelog.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 1, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 66.82028% with 72 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.30%. Comparing base (e4fad43) to head (2f4e90f).

Files Patch % Lines
internal/payload/consensus_message.go 66.66% 17 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
consensus_message_type.go 0.00% 16 Missing ⚠️
config.go 72.50% 11 Missing ⚠️
internal/payload/recovery_message.go 35.29% 11 Missing ⚠️
dbft.go 82.14% 2 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
internal/payload/change_view.go 0.00% 3 Missing ⚠️
internal/payload/constructors.go 57.14% 3 Missing ⚠️
send.go 87.50% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
check.go 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
internal/block/block.go 80.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #97      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.22%   72.30%   -0.93%     
==========================================
  Files          24       25       +1     
  Lines        1393     1390       -3     
==========================================
- Hits         1020     1005      -15     
- Misses        305      318      +13     
+ Partials       68       67       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@AnnaShaleva
Copy link
Member Author

AnnaShaleva commented Mar 1, 2024

@roman-khimov, I need some initial assessment of the resulting packages structure from your side. If the direction is OK, then I'll update the documentation. The resulting built binary is smaller than the one got from master:

-rw-rw-r--  1 anna anna 189040 мар  1 22:12 build.branch
-rw-rw-r--  1 anna anna 622930 мар  1 22:11 build.master

I'm not sure how to deal with internal package. Currently dbft package doesn't depend on internal in any way, is it enough? I'm not sure if internal is excluded from build in this case.

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva requested a review from roman-khimov March 1, 2024 19:17
@roman-khimov
Copy link
Member

It looks OK except for some new exports. I'd then want to simplify payload interfaces (getters/setters suck), but that can wait.

Close #90.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva force-pushed the tidy-dbft branch 2 times, most recently from f5818b9 to 2640fae Compare March 4, 2024 10:36
@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2024 10:39
@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva requested a review from roman-khimov March 4, 2024 10:41
To avoid cyclic dependency during tests and completely untie dBFT from
non-generic payloads implementation.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Noone needs them, they are used only for tests and as examples.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
…ture

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
@AnnaShaleva
Copy link
Member Author

I'd then want to simplify payload interfaces (getters/setters suck), but that can wait.

We may do this in #84.

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2024
@roman-khimov roman-khimov merged commit 4f3a7fe into master Mar 4, 2024
@roman-khimov roman-khimov deleted the tidy-dbft branch March 4, 2024 12:08
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.

Consider not importing default payload implementations for production applications Consider moving dBFT payload interfaces to dbft

3 participants