add proposer::TransactionPicker #153
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
scravy
requested review from
AM5800,
cornelius,
frolosofsky,
Gnappuraz,
kostyantyn,
Nizametdinov,
Ruteri and
thothd
Gnappuraz
reviewed
Oct 9, 2018
Gnappuraz
approved these changes
Oct 10, 2018
|
@Gnappuraz Thanks for your approval :-) @AM5800 @Ruteri WDYT? I'd be very much interested in your opinion. |
frolosofsky
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
src/proposer/transactionpicker.h
Outdated
| virtual ~TransactionPicker() = default; | ||
|
|
||
| //! \brief Factory method for creating a BlockAssemblerAdapter | ||
| static std::unique_ptr<TransactionPicker> BlockAssemblerAdapter( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my personal opinion: avoid any collisions, e.g., all these names should be unique:
- namespace
- class name
- function names
- local variables
Otherwise, it can confuse the reader. maybe think of another name for it?
and then you don't need to explicitly use class keyword when instantiating the object.
new class BlockAssemblerAdapter(chainParams));
AM5800
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
kostyantyn
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
scravy
force-pushed
the
transactionpicker
branch
from
fe454ca to
d0d595c
Compare
cornelius
reviewed
Oct 10, 2018
scravy
force-pushed
the
transactionpicker
branch
from
d63f7cc to
d0d595c
Compare
|
For the newcommers: When reviewing we try to stick to the contribution guidelines outlined by bitcoin, which are documented in https://github.com/dtr-org/unit-e/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#peer-review Additionally we use githubs review/approve mechanism. |
frolosofsky
requested review from
frolosofsky
and removed request for
frolosofsky
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds a class named
TransactionPickerand introduces a new namespaceproposerin its own directory. I sort of got fed up of the untestability of bitcoin and that everything is intertwined with each other directly.In order to propose a block I need to build one which is I have to (1) pick transactions (2) put a coinstake transaction (includes block height, signature, reward output) (3) sign the thing. Picking transactions is already implemented in bitcoin but it's well buried inside
CBlockAssemblerwhich does too many things at once for my taste + deals with that horrendousCBlockTemplate(see comment inBlockAssemblerAdapterin the source).Since I want my Proposer to be testable and (1+2+3) are essentially simple operations I want the code to be simple. So here is the part which performs 1, by delegating to bitcoin's block assembler (for now). This way I do not have to change the block assembler or overwrite the coinbase transaction in the block template.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about my approach, as I intend to follow it with everything I do from now on. Maybe you are fundamentally opposed to virtual methods or whatever.
In bitcoin there have been small efforts to extract things into Interfaces (
CValidationInterfacefor instance) also. More recent work is on separating wallet and node and also here they start to create interfaces (bitcoin/bitcoin#14437,src/interfaces).