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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Add missing failures to Transaction_snark.Base.User_command_failure.t #6450

Closed
psteckler opened this issue Oct 20, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Add missing failures to Transaction_snark.Base.User_command_failure.t #6450

psteckler opened this issue Oct 20, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@psteckler
Copy link
Member

The constructors of that type should match those in Coda_base.User_command_status.Failure.t.

There are some missing cases.
@psteckler psteckler mentioned this issue Oct 20, 2020
Merged
@psteckler
Copy link
Member Author

Should that module just be aliased, so they're always in synch?

@mrmr1993
Copy link
Member

There is no technical reason to do this: the logic in the snark matches the logic outside of the snark, and the two kinds of failure never interact. Doing this also unnecessarily inflates the size of the snark.

However, I'm a fan of paying down technical debt: we should do #6050 and then consume the User_command_failure.t directly, so that we don't have 2 parallel concepts and implementations.

Perhaps, though, we should shelve #6446 until #6050 is done.

@psteckler
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, having just one type for the possible failures sounds like the right solution.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@mrmr1993 @psteckler @aneesharaines