Update chain to use lisk-codec with new schema - Closes #5264 #5367
Conversation
ManuGowda
force-pushed
the
5270-encode-decode-transactions
branch
from
9886e56 to
08cb5b3
Compare
shuse2
force-pushed
the
5264-update_chain_codec
branch
from
d8b8925 to
938539a
Compare
shuse2
force-pushed
the
5264-update_chain_codec
branch
from
d1989ea to
d1e6664
Compare
Chain build complete without state store match
shuse2
force-pushed
the
5264-update_chain_codec
branch
from
fc03bef to
c9ddd65
Compare
shuse2
force-pushed
the
5264-update_chain_codec
branch
from
4f9a4bd to
fe4c4dc
Compare
elements/lisk-chain/src/data_access/block_header_interface_adapter.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
elements/lisk-chain/src/data_access/block_header_interface_adapter.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
elements/lisk-chain/src/data_access/block_header_interface_adapter.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** End: BlockHeaders */ | ||
|
|
||
| /** Begin: Blocks */ | ||
|
|
||
| public async getBlockByID(id: string): Promise<BlockInstance> { | ||
| const blockJSON = await this._storage.getBlockByID(id); | ||
| public async getBlockByID<T>(id: Buffer): Promise<Block<T>> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
whats the purpose of generics here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It can specify what type of block header it's expecting
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but we you care not using T anywhere.. its basically expecting same type it requested for.. so it wouldnt make difference if we remove it as well rite? you are missing this part
return this._decodeRawBlock<T>(block);?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is mainly used outside, maybe we can remove it, but if we want to make typescript work bit better outside of chain, i think this is better?
From outside, i dont think return this._decodeRawBlock<T>(block); matters for the type
Update generic and specific schema validation in lisk-transactions - Closes #5370
| export interface DefaultAsset { | ||
| [key: string]: { | ||
| [key: string]: BasicTypes; | ||
| }; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can't we define AccountAsset in a more granular way AccountAsset { delegate: {...}, sentVotes: {...}, unlocking: {...}} instead of just giving it so generic. I know its corresponding to the schema provided in the LIP but once we deserialize and make an Account class object maybe we can expand the type definition withing the asset?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is intentionally made generic because chain doesn't know about exact account asset schema
What was the problem?
This PR resolves #5264
How was it solved?
How was it tested?