refactor: some cleanups in process_tx_internal
#13003
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #13003 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 69.69% 69.71% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 859 859
Lines 175995 176002 +7
Branches 175995 176002 +7
==========================================
+ Hits 122657 122697 +40
+ Misses 48176 48150 -26
+ Partials 5162 5155 -7
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| self.forward_tx(&epoch_id, tx, signer)?; | ||
| Ok(ProcessTxResponse::RequestRouted) | ||
| return Ok(ProcessTxResponse::NoResponse); | ||
| } | ||
| // We are not tracking this shard, so there is no way to validate this tx. Just rerouting. | ||
| self.forward_tx(&epoch_id, tx, signer).map(|()| ProcessTxResponse::RequestRouted) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The original version seems more readable to me, but I’m fine with both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I too think that the original version is easier to read however what I like about this version is that we make it explicit what forward_tx() is returning in the happy path i.e. (). And if we ever make a change there, then the compiler will help us identify all the places where the changes need to be made.
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
|
looks like these changes are not correct. Nayduck tests are panicking and I suspect it is probably this line: nearcore/chain/chain/src/test_utils/kv_runtime.rs Line 1054 in 391d70b |
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
- Remove some more `?` by using alternative means to get the data. - reduce indentation by inserting explicit `return`s. This makes it a bit easier to understand what the code is doing. Still I think there is room for improvement but bit by bit.
- Remove some more `?` by using alternative means to get the data. - reduce indentation by inserting explicit `return`s. This makes it a bit easier to understand what the code is doing. Still I think there is room for improvement but bit by bit.
?by using alternative means to get the data.returns. This makes it a bit easier to understand what the code is doing. Still I think there is room for improvement but bit by bit.