Correct cache validity comment in Includer #517
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The previous comment claimed the cache “ends with at least 8 consecutive rounds,” but the implementation only checks the number of cached rounds (self.cache.len() >= CACHE_SIZE). Rounds can legitimately be skipped when collecting Deliver actions (only the latest round in a batch is used), and is_unknown only needs a horizon of recent processed rounds, not strict numeric consecutiveness. This change aligns the comment with the actual and intended behavior, preventing confusion and avoiding pressure to implement an unnecessary “consecutive rounds” check.