Create StateForProposedFederator and Refactor StateForFederator #2738
Conversation
apancorb
force-pushed
the
feat/state_for_federator
branch
from
3a353a8
to
3057b17
Compare
|
|
||
| public class StateForProposedFederator { | ||
|
|
||
| private final Map.Entry<Keccak256, BtcTransaction> rskTxWaitingForSignatures; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since this will be for a very specific use case, what do you think about calling it svpSpendTxWaitingForSignatures
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we also change the other one to pegoutsWaitingForSignatures? Or too specific?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That one can be pegouts, migrations, fund tx. This one is very specific
| Keccak256 rskTxHash1 = createHash3(1); | ||
| Keccak256 rskTxHash2 = createHash3(2); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's use the new method that's in RskTestUtils in favor of this one that is deprecated.
No need to change it everywhere, but at least in the new places and lines we refactor
|
|
||
| package co.rsk.peg; | ||
|
|
||
| import static co.rsk.peg.PegTestUtils.createHash3; |
| private static final NetworkParameters NETWORK_PARAMETERS = NetworkParameters.fromID(NetworkParameters.ID_MAINNET); | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void stateForProposedFederator_whenSerializeAndDeserialize_shouldHaveEqualState() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
a test when there's no tx waiting for signatures?
|
|
||
| public StateForFederator(byte[] rlpData, NetworkParameters parameters) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Careful careful, I believe this is used from the powpeg-node
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay it makes sense now, will update :) Thanks for the heads up
apancorb
force-pushed
the
feat/state_for_federator
branch
2 times, most recently
from
64d8dae
to
9aff079
Compare
apancorb
force-pushed
the
feat/state_for_federator
branch
from
9aff079
to
29b441d
Compare
…ator constructor checks
apancorb
force-pushed
the
feat/state_for_federator
branch
from
582f3fe
to
f32735e
Compare
|
| @@ -1657,7 +1657,7 @@ private void processSigning( | |||
| */ | |||
| public byte[] getStateForBtcReleaseClient() throws IOException { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not related to this PR, but looks like we are going to need some tests for this method
marcos-iov
merged commit 24f3a93
into
feature/powpeg_validation_protocol-phase2
Description
New DTO class called
StateForProposedFederator, which would act similar to existingStateForFederator. It will receive thesvpSpendTxWaitingForSignaturesto notify the pegnatories.Also includes a refactor of
StateForFederator.Motivation and Context
https://github.com/rsksmart/RSKIPs/blob/master/IPs/RSKIP419.md