refactor(governance): update StateWriteExt::signal_upgrade comment #4789
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
The comment change is good; for the other change, right now it can be done, but I like the ability to add fallibility and asyncness to the inner logic without needing to change the callsites. For example, if we need to read some state, for example. So I don't think we should really touch that for now. |
Signed-off-by: syvb <me@iter.ca>
syvb
force-pushed
the
simple-signal_upgrade
branch
from
2172153 to
88d3a3e
Compare
syvb
changed the title
|
@cronokirby I updated the PR to just update the comment. |
cronokirby
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Describe your changes
StateWriteExt::signal_upgradeis infallible and doesn't await on anything, so its function signature can be simplified to not be async and not return aResult<()>that's alwaysOk(()).Also fixes a comment referring to
TOTAL_HALT_COUNT, which is now a boolean and not a count.Checklist before requesting a review
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: