The code in the Tendermint repository makes heavy use of import aliasing.
This is made necessary by our extensive reuse of common base package names, and
by repetition of similar names across different subdirectories.
Unfortunately we have not been very consistent about which packages we alias in
various circumstances, and the aliases we use vary. In the spirit of the advice
in the style guide and https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/CodeReviewComments#imports,
his change makes an effort to clean up and normalize import aliasing.
This change makes no API or behavioral changes. It is a pure cleanup intended
o help make the code more readable to developers (including myself) trying to
understand what is being imported where.
Only unexported names have been modified, and the changes were generated and
applied mechanically with gofmt -r and comby, respecting the lexical and
syntactic rules of Go. Even so, I did not fix every inconsistency. Where the
changes would be too disruptive, I left it alone.
The principles I followed in this cleanup are:
- Remove aliases that restate the package name.
- Remove aliases where the base package name is unambiguous.
- Move overly-terse abbreviations from the import to the usage site.
- Fix lexical issues (remove underscores, remove capitalization).
- Fix import groupings to more closely match the style guide.
- Group blank (side-effecting) imports and ensure they are commented.
- Add aliases to multiple imports with the same base package name.
Closes#6551
Simple PR to add the total gas used in the block by adding the gas used in all the transactions.
This adds a `TotalGasUsed` field to `coretypes.ResultBlockResults`.
Its my first PR to the repo so let me know if there is anything I am missing!
@fedekunze In case you want to take a look
* Added BlockStore.DeleteBlock()
* Added initial block pruner prototype
* wip
* Added BlockStore.PruneBlocks()
* Added consensus setting for block pruning
* Added BlockStore base
* Error on replay if base does not have blocks
* Handle missing blocks when sending VoteSetMaj23Message
* Error message tweak
* Properly update blockstore state
* Error message fix again
* blockchain: ignore peer missing blocks
* Added FIXME
* Added test for block replay with truncated history
* Handle peer base in blockchain reactor
* Improved replay error handling
* Added tests for Store.PruneBlocks()
* Fix non-RPC handling of truncated block history
* Panic on missing block meta in needProofBlock()
* Updated changelog
* Handle truncated block history in RPC layer
* Added info about earliest block in /status RPC
* Reorder height and base in blockchain reactor messages
* Updated changelog
* Fix tests
* Appease linter
* Minor review fixes
* Non-empty BlockStores should always have base > 0
* Update code to assume base > 0 invariant
* Added blockstore tests for pruning to 0
* Make sure we don't prune below the current base
* Added BlockStore.Size()
* config: added retain_blocks recommendations
* Update v1 blockchain reactor to handle blockstore base
* Added state database pruning
* Propagate errors on missing validator sets
* Comment tweaks
* Improved error message
Co-Authored-By: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
* use ABCI field ResponseCommit.retain_height instead of retain-blocks config option
* remove State.RetainHeight, return value instead
* fix minor issues
* rename pruneHeights() to pruneBlocks()
* noop to fix GitHub borkage
Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
* format: add format cmd & goimport repo
- replaced format command
- added goimports to format command
- ran goimports
Signed-off-by: Marko Baricevic <marbar3778@yahoo.com>
* fix outliers & undo proto file changes
BREAKING
Example response:
```json
{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"id": "",
"result": {
"height": "2109",
"txs_results": null,
"begin_block_events": null,
"end_block_events": null,
"validator_updates": null,
"consensus_param_updates": null
}
}
```
Old result consisted of ABCIResponses struct and height. Exposing
internal ABCI structures (which we store in state package) in RPC seems
bad to me for the following reasons:
1) high risk of breaking the API when somebody changes internal structs
(HAPPENED HERE!)
2) RPC is aware of ABCI, which I'm not sure we want