Test v2026.5.0#191
Conversation
Deploying alto with
|
| Latest commit: |
2b0e9e4
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://05db83bc.alto-8k4.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://v2026-5-0-testing.alto-8k4.pages.dev |
| if let Some(backfiller) = self.backfiller.clone() { | ||
| self.context | ||
| .child("backfill_record") | ||
| .spawn(move |_| async move { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's add attributes?
| let marshal_handle = self.marshal.start(mailbox, self.buffer_mailbox, marshal); | ||
| let marshal_handle = self.marshal.start( | ||
| mailbox, | ||
| None::<buffered::Mailbox<PublicKey, Block>>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Marshal should define some trait for this so we don't have to link Mailbox?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may just be able to implement some buffered trait over None (does nothing) and remove OptionalBuffer.
| use commonware_utils::NZUsize; | ||
| use std::time::Duration; | ||
|
|
||
| /// Verifies that marshal's Deliver handler rejects a finalization whose |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
restore this?
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[cfg(test)] | ||
| mod tests { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
restore tests?
| #[derive(Clone)] | ||
| pub struct MockSource { | ||
| pub block_handler: BlockHandler, | ||
| #[allow(dead_code)] |
| .worker_threads | ||
| .checked_add(config.signature_threads) | ||
| .expect("network buffer pool parallelism overflowed"); | ||
| // Storage I/O runs on Tokio's blocking pool. Include those threads in the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add \n before?
| .spawn(move |_| async move { | ||
| // Cache the finalized block in memory and enqueue its digest | ||
| // before acking so the consumer can recover it across restarts. | ||
| backfiller.record(&block).await; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should this/can this be a mailbox? I suppose record here is a durable write?
| spawn_cell!(self.context, self.run()) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async fn run(mut self) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we just have this implement report for marshal?
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #191 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 68.71% 68.68% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 30 30
Lines 5712 5815 +103
==========================================
+ Hits 3925 3994 +69
- Misses 1787 1821 +34
Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Related: https://github.com/commonwarexyz/monorepo/milestone/18