Add a tool to write CryptoHash to DB #10766
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #10766 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 71.49% 71.47% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 758 759 +1
Lines 152284 152314 +30
Branches 152284 152314 +30
==========================================
+ Hits 108868 108871 +3
- Misses 38909 38933 +24
- Partials 4507 4510 +3
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| pub(crate) struct WriteCryptoHashCommand { | ||
| #[clap(long)] | ||
| hash: near_primitives::hash::CryptoHash, | ||
| #[clap(subcommand)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the fact that this is a subcommand is a bit weird to me, but I guess it's okay. Why not just another long arg, like --column, and then --key could also be another long arg that accepts arbitrary bytes. And if you want to write to the STATE_SNAPSHOT_KEY you could either spell it out in the argument to --key or there could be yet another long arg, --state-snapshot-key, that's a shorthand for that, that you could give in place of --key. just a thought though
| column: ColumnSelector, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| impl WriteCryptoHashCommand { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so this command is quite dangerous. Let's say that I run it and then it's in my bash history. And then I'm scrolling through my bash history to find some unrelated thing and I accidentally re-run the previous invocation of this command. This would be quite sad, and quite a bit sadder than accidentally running neard run. Is it worth adding a prompt that the user needs to explicitly agree to (without a -f flag or something)?
@marcelo-gonzalez We should also add this to 1.38.0. It will not break anything, but improve mitigation experience if we are to fail snapshot creation again.
The tool in 1.37.0-fix was called like this
Now it should be called like this