refactor: Remove ::Params() global from CChainState#21789
refactor: Remove ::Params() global from CChainState#21789fanquake merged 2 commits intobitcoin:masterfrom
Conversation
fa5915e to
fad0c2a
Compare
|
Concept ACK, will review soon |
|
Concept ACK |
1 similar comment
|
Concept ACK |
fad0c2a to
fa4b981
Compare
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
|
Concept ACK. It looks like a very nice simplification which makes it harder to make a mistake. |
fae8528 to
fa49430
Compare
|
🕵️ @sipa has been requested to review this pull request as specified in the REVIEWERS file. |
fa49430 to
fad6615
Compare
fad6615 to
eeee9c6
Compare
eeee9c6 to
faa72ee
Compare
|
The main change in the first commit (fa216cc7) seems to be: "refactor: Add Also, the changes like this fa216cc#diff-97c3a52bc5fad452d82670a7fd291800bae20c7bc35bb82686c2c0a4ea7b5b98R2284 in the first commit (fa216cc7) can probably be moved to the second commit (fa06aaacf3b9c35d9e30c883bcd7780dcf0bceda) so that the first commit would only introduce Changes in fa216cc79267ba25fa3709982626def61f4abe2a & fa06aaacf3b9c35d9e30c883bcd7780dcf0bceda LGTM. |
|
Concept ACK |
|
I think the two commits are nicely split up. The first one removes it from inside the functions, the second removes the arg of the functions. |
faa72ee to
2222da8
Compare
|
ACK 2222da832066d06be3ff8752e49008fef71eb668 |
…ctions It is confusing and verbose to repeatedly access the global when a member variable can simply refer to it.
Passing this is confusing and redundant with the m_params member.
2222da8 to
fa0d921
Compare
|
Rebased |
|
ACK fa0d921 |
|
utACK fa0d921 |
| for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { | ||
| BlockValidationState state; | ||
| m_node.chainman->ActiveChainstate().InvalidateBlock(state, Params(), active.Tip()); | ||
| m_node.chainman->ActiveChainstate().InvalidateBlock(state, active.Tip()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is #include <chainparams.h> still needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, will try to remove if I have to force push
The
::Params()global is verbose and confusing. Also it makes tests a bit harder to write because they'd have to mock a global.Fix all issues by simply using a member variable that points to the right params.
(Can be reviewed with
--word-diff-regex=.)