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

cleanup stale todo's #9028

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 24, 2025
Merged

cleanup stale todo's #9028

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 24, 2025

Conversation

rolfyone
Copy link
Contributor

Removed the SlashingProtectedValidatorSource todo as its had several PRs from bots, and it's actually grossly over-simplifying.

Re-worded to remove TODO in EraFile, as its just a POC, and we won't be accepting any tiny changes there, the note was for when its rewritten.

Removed the TODO from SszCollectionSchema but left the content, as it does seem valid.

remove stale reference to a PR #3356
Fixes #7532

Documentation

  • I thought about documentation and added the doc-change-required label to this PR if updates are required.

Changelog

  • I thought about adding a changelog entry, and added one if I deemed necessary.

Removed the SlashingProtectedValidatorSource todo as its had several PRs from bots, and it's actually grossly over-simplifying.

Re-worded to remove TODO in EraFile, as its just a POC, and we won't be accepting any tiny changes there, the note was for when its rewritten.

Removed the TODO from SszCollectionSchema but left the content, as it does seem valid.

remove stale reference to a PR Consensys#3356
Fixes Consensys#7532

Signed-off-by: Paul Harris <paul.harris@consensys.net>
@@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ default SszCollectionT createFromElements(final List<? extends SszElementT> elem
}

default TreeNode createTreeFromElements(final List<? extends SszElementT> elements) {
// TODO: probably suboptimal method implementation:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd leave the comment of this being prob a suboptimal impl

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

we can just re-visit that, we have lots of sub-optimal implementations of things IMO

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Problem is how we will revisit it if the comment is gone. Possibly raise an issue?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@rolfyone rolfyone Jan 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Literally 80% of our code is in the same spot.... We typically don't write optimised code because the spec isn't optimised, and I dont think commenting every non-optimised section of code is going to leave readable code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

also please note the entire comment of the reasoning is there if you look at the next lines. its just the 'probably suboptimal' that is gone.
added more noise with #9035 to also track onthe board but i think where i left it was more than adequate. am marking this thread resolved.

@rolfyone rolfyone enabled auto-merge (squash) January 24, 2025 21:25
@rolfyone rolfyone merged commit d9b07ea into Consensys:master Jan 24, 2025
16 checks passed
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.

[libp2p] Don't use custom maxBufferedConnectionWrites for yamux
3 participants