Remove issueWithAncestors
#3153
Draft
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Why this should be merged
issueWithAncestorsis a weird method. While it is similar to the other block issuance flow, its complexity is really only there to attempt to better handle the case that the VM builds on top of a non-verified block. This is highly unusual... VMs typically always build on top of the currently preferred block.How this works
deliveralready handles the case that the block isn't able to be issued to consensus. So we can essentially just directly call it if we don't care about attempting to issue ancestors of the newly built block from the cache of non-verified blocks.The call to
canIssueChildOnoutside ofdeliveris just to prevent cancelling dependencies of this newly built block if it is built on a weird parent.How this was tested