This ensure we do not expose information from internal data structure and can propose a stable API.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
jasonbcox - Group Reviewers
Restricted Project - Commits
- rABCc23e06f18a83: [avalanche] Manipulate peers via PeerId
ninja all check-avalanche
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rABC Bitcoin ABC
- Lint
Lint Not Applicable - Unit
Tests Not Applicable
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
The nits aren't a big deal, but the comment in selectPeerImpl() needs to be addressed in some way.
| src/avalanche/peermanager.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| src/avalanche/peermanager.h | ||
| 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. |