feat: state.{Get,Set}Extra[SA any](*StateDB,types.ExtraPayloads,...)
#48
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
ARR4N
requested review from
a team,
ceyonur,
darioush and
michaelkaplan13
and removed request for
a team
darioush
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Why this should be merged
Provides access to
types.StateAccountExtrapayloads for actual state persistence (i.e. where it's needed).How this works
The
state.SetExtra()function mirrors the behaviour of existing mutators ofstate.stateObjectfields. As they need to be generic, neitherSetExtra()norGetExtra()could be methods onstate.StateDB.How this was tested
Integration test of
types.RegisterExtras()withstate.StateDBvia (a) the new functions; (b) direct access to asnapshot.AccountIterator; (c)StateDB.Snapshot()and revert; and (d)StateDB.Copy().Although the
StateDB.Copy()test passes, I'm still a little uncomfortable about the risk of shallow copying so will send a follow-up PR with an explicit cloning path.