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

Fix SlabIterator to include nested storage ID (non-inlining feature branch) #398

Merged

Conversation

fxamacker
Copy link
Member

Closes #397

This problem does not affect atree inlining feature branch.

SlabIterator is used by storage health check, which is used for tests and for new migration features like filtering out old unreferenced slabs, etc.

Currently, SlabIterator doesn't traverse deep enough to handle nested storage ID inside another storable such as Cadence SomeValue.

This PR updates SlabIterator to handle nested storage ID in element such as Cadence SomeValue.


  • Targeted PR against main branch
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work
  • Code follows the standards mentioned here
  • Updated relevant documentation
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Added appropriate labels

SlabIterator is used by storage health check, which is used
for tests and for new migration features like filtering out
old unreferenced slabs, etc.

Currently, SlabIterator doesn't traverse deep enough to handle
nested storage ID inside another storable such as Cadence SomeValue.

This commit fixes this by handling nested storage ID in element
such as Cadence SomeValue.
Copy link
Member

@turbolent turbolent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch!

@fxamacker fxamacker merged commit a64bde8 into feature/stable-cadence Apr 29, 2024
7 checks passed
@turbolent
Copy link
Member

@fxamacker Does this PR still need to get ported to another feature branch?

@fxamacker
Copy link
Member Author

@fxamacker Does this PR still need to get ported to another feature branch?

@turbolent No, because this was already in the atree-inlining feature branch (I used this to iterate atree inlined slabs).

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants