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

feat(rad): decode JSON more efficiently #2373

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 3, 2023

Conversation

aesedepece
Copy link
Member

@aesedepece aesedepece commented May 22, 2023

This should solve the stoppers for witnet/witnet-price-router#210 (comment).

This change may require activation through TAPI, provided that non-updated nodes will commit errors where updated nodes will report normally.

fix #2315
fix #2338

@Tommytrg Edit:
Also fix #2373

@aesedepece Edit:
Lol, it fixes itself?

@aesedepece
Copy link
Member Author

Nodes that implement this change will commit different values than those who do not. Namely, implementors may commit values where others may commit errors.

While this can be seen as a breaking change, strictly speaking, changes to witnessing behavior like this can't really jeopardize consensus or data integrity — provided that the affected data requests are already being tallied to an error.

That is to say that we should be fine releasing this without a TAPI guard because it will not make data requests start to fail but rather make them end up with a different error for as long as there's no majority of implementors in the witnessing committee, to eventually make it succeed with a value when the implementors are in majority.

What do you think @witnet/devs?

@drcpu-github
Copy link
Collaborator

I think under the assumptions that you mention, it is fine to release this without TAPI.

As long as a change does not influence validation or consensus logic and whether someone implements this change or not (to use WIP terms) has no implications to network liveness and / or correctness, it does not require TAPI. This does brings up the question whether something like the redirect WIP was really necessary and probably requires updating the WIP rules or a stricter compliance to them.

@aesedepece aesedepece marked this pull request as ready for review July 27, 2023 09:27
@aesedepece
Copy link
Member Author

I'm aiming at shipping this together with #2385 in an eventual 1.6.6 release.

@aesedepece aesedepece requested a review from Tommytrg July 28, 2023 09:19
@aesedepece aesedepece merged commit 081dac6 into witnet:master Aug 3, 2023
@aesedepece aesedepece mentioned this pull request Aug 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants