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.

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

Replaces fs-err in untar_snapshot_create_shared_buffer() #34905

Conversation

brooksprumo
Copy link
Contributor

Problem

We're trying to remove the fs-err crate. For more information, please refer to #34838.

snapshot_utils::untar_snapshot_create_shared_buffer() still uses fs-err, but doesn't need to.

Summary of Changes

Replace fs-err with std::fs

@brooksprumo brooksprumo self-assigned this Jan 23, 2024
@brooksprumo brooksprumo marked this pull request as ready for review January 23, 2024 16:47
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 23, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (8ff511e) 81.6% compared to head (a0b99fb) 81.6%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #34905     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage    81.6%    81.6%   -0.1%     
=========================================
  Files         827      827             
  Lines      223884   223890      +6     
=========================================
- Hits       182841   182792     -49     
- Misses      41043    41098     +55     

Copy link
Contributor

@apfitzge apfitzge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lftm - curious if this function should be returning a Result<SharedBuffer> instead though?

@brooksprumo brooksprumo merged commit a21cfbd into solana-labs:master Jan 23, 2024
35 checks passed
@brooksprumo brooksprumo deleted the errors/untar_snapshot_create_shared_buffer branch January 23, 2024 17:46
@brooksprumo
Copy link
Contributor Author

curious if this function should be returning a Result<SharedBuffer> instead though?

Yeah, maybe. I was surprised by the unwrap myself. That could be changed, yes. I haven't looked at the callers to see if an unwrap is impossible or not.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants