This ensure we do not expose information from internal data structure and can propose a stable API.
- Group Reviewers
- rABCc23e06f18a83: [avalanche] Manipulate peers via PeerId
ninja all check-avalanche
The nits aren't a big deal, but the comment in selectPeerImpl() needs to be addressed in some way.
|10 ↗||(On Diff #21899)|
Nit: Add a TODO otherwise this comment is confusing
|135 ↗||(On Diff #21899)|
I can't find a reference to this behavior in the rest of the code or tests. Assuming this is a mistake, it indicates there's a missing test case somewhere. More specifically, this could impact selectPeer() in weird ways.
|12 ↗||(On Diff #21899)|
Nit: Introduction of PeerId could have been its own diff which would eliminate extra scrolling during review due to extra context in this diff.