This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 15, 2023. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adding Dispute Participation Metrics #6838
Adding Dispute Participation Metrics #6838
Changes from 9 commits
107f971
a8186fc
b6cb2c7
faa7eb5
bc7049e
7b0bfc0
56e7723
4185d4d
20ceda9
02e5608
6444e6d
008063f
207bb2a
3fcb639
ef611aa
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
nit: Should the metric names be updated to match the new variable names? e.g.
"polkadot_parachain_dispute_participation_priority_queue_size"
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.
nit: Why we need this variable?
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 catch! That was an artifact from a discarded implementation.
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.
nit: I had an internal struggle about this, but I think we should just impl
eq
on this type. I believe that already implies functional equality. I read the docs forPartialEq
, and there is no restriction mentioned about having to include every field in the equality comparison.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.
Interesting! I hadn't thought of it that way. But it does make sense. I shall make changes.
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.
I'd implement this by destructuring (unless it's not possible due to something I'm not seeing right now). This way we'll get a compilation error if a new field is added to the struct.
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.
Also can't we implement
std::cmp::PartialEq::eq
forParticipationRequest
so that we have got a bit nicer looking syntax?