-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 499
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
Merge upstream master
into horizon-v2.28.2
to facilitate the back-merge
#5206
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
22 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d1e4c7c
Remove captive core info request error logs (#5145)
tamirms bd8533a
Fix captive core toml history entries (#5150)
tamirms 495d18c
#5152: changed the 'Processed ledger' log output from streamLedger to…
sreuland 428a0be
services/horizon/ingest: removed legacy core cursor update against du…
sreuland 15324b7
#5156: do not include range prep time in 'Reingestion done' logged du…
sreuland 3483910
http archive requests include user agent and metrics (#5166)
sreuland 33bf9b6
Fix tradeagg rebuild from reingest command with parallel workers (#5168)
sreuland 477db6f
2.28.0 release prep, update ci tests for latest soroban and changelog…
sreuland 7e6d25f
historyarchive: Cache bucket files from history archives on disk. (#5…
Shaptic a8b5c8e
services/horizon: Bump the history archive cache size to increase hit…
Shaptic 0ddb36f
historyarchive: Make the library target the same log as Horizon (#5178)
Shaptic bfaf9e1
services/horizon: Add DISABLE_SOROBAN_INGEST flag to skip soroban ing…
urvisavla 93f9d70
historyarchive: Improve existence checks and performance (#5179)
Shaptic fcfa5a1
update 2.28.0 changelog, captive core cursor removal notes (#5181)
sreuland 24a7e9f
clean up markdown on 2.28.0 release notes
sreuland 0fa7d22
Fix for transaction submission timeout (#5191)
aditya1702 433831f
updated changelog notes
sreuland 098e686
better description of txsub issue in notes
sreuland 4ef82e9
services/horizon: Fix claimable balance query (#5200)
urvisavla 02cd784
services/horizon: Add cache toggle and use libary for on-disk caching…
Shaptic f232a9b
Update CHANGELOG.md (#5201)
urvisavla f8cc68d
Merge branch 'master' into v2.28.2-backmerge. Steps:
Shaptic File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is a diff I'm a little worried about because I'm not sure which is correct. @sreuland you're on the
git blame
for this so can you help give some insight?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ugh, this looks like a bad merge conflict resolution, that's not what 2.28.2 looks like in this area.
hmm, when i ported 2.28.0 and 2.28.1 branches back to master, I used interactive rebase instead of merge-master-to-rel-then-merge-rel-back-to-master and found that resulted in less conflicts and easier to understand the remaining ones which did arise from archive pool stuff of light horizon going into master but not not on 2.28 yet
it may be worth re-trying this merge of 2.28.2 to master with a rebase instead just to see - try create new branch off release branch, from that branch
git rebase -i master
choose just the new commits on the 2.28.2 branch, and see how conflicts look from there, should be a lot less, and should only see the commits relevant to the 2.28.2 show up in git compare to master, whereas this pr is showing a lot of commitsThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not a bad resolution because I did it on purpose: you can see that on master it has the commented-out lines! I left them both in specifically because I wanted to ensure that the behavior preserved here (i.e. incrementing downloads) is actually the correct one! So can you confirm that? 😄
The merge actually went well otherwise! The conflicts were almost exclusively related to my code in #5197 so I had a good handle on how to resolve everything.
I think the reason why there are so many commits showing here is exactly because you did an interactive rebase, so it still thinks that those commits from .0 and .1 are different than the ones you merged into master (since history got modified). I'll try it via the rebase approach to see if it's cleaner
but I also think it's fine as-is since the conflicts got worked out.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good call on the interactive rebase - it's a cleaner history! At the expense of authors getting a little murky but that's okay. Please review there, instead ➡️ #5210!