Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Migrate to Rust backend with fast spendability support #1160

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 21, 2023

Conversation

str4d
Copy link
Collaborator

@str4d str4d commented Jul 19, 2023

Depends on Electric-Coin-Company/zcash-light-client-ffi#94.

Author

  • Self-review: Did you review your own code in GitHub's web interface? Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs.
  • Automated tests: Did you add appropriate automated tests for any code changes?
  • Code coverage: Did you check the code coverage report for the automated tests? While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed.
  • Documentation: Did you update Docs as appropiate? (E.g README.md, etc.)
  • Run the app: Did you run the app and try the changes?
  • Did you provide Screenshots of what the App looks like before and after your changes as part of the description of this PR? (only applicable to UI Changes)
  • Rebase and squash: Did you pull in the latest changes from the main branch and squash your commits before assigning a reviewer? Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit.

Reviewer

  • Checklist review: Did you go through the code with the Code Review Guidelines checklist?
  • Ad hoc review: Did you perform an ad hoc review? In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass.
  • Automated tests: Did you review the automated tests?
  • Manual tests: Did you review the manual tests?You will find manual testing guidelines under our manual testing section
  • How is Code Coverage affected by this PR? We encourage you to compare coverage befor and after your changes and when possible, leave it in a better place. Learn More...
  • Documentation: Did you review Docs, README.md, LICENSE.md, and Architecture.md as appropriate?
  • Run the app: Did you run the app and try the changes? While the CI server runs the app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the app are more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data.

Copy link
Collaborator

@LukasKorba LukasKorba left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So far the code looks good, I only noticed we should remove the ZcashErrors related to Validation as that one has been removed. I'll go through errors first so I'm sure we remove the right ones.

Anyway, when testing the functionality I've got stuck at the beginning, the Synchronizer calls prepare() and there

        if case .seedRequired = try await self.initializer.initialize(
           with: seed, 
           viewingKeys: viewingKeys, 
           walletBirthday: walletBirthday) {

is called.. eventually ZcashRustBackend's rustBackend.initDataDb(seed: seed) calls zcashlc_init_data_database and that one seems to start some sort of migration or tree/subtree magic but loops over and over.

@LukasKorba LukasKorba merged commit 87faf91 into main Jul 21, 2023
1 check passed
@LukasKorba LukasKorba deleted the fast-spendability branch July 21, 2023 07:25
@str4d str4d mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2023
14 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@nuttycom nuttycom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

post-hoc utACK

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants