non-functional - re-run protoc to update comments #502
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is a follow-on to PR 495, which changed the comments in service.proto but didn't regenerate service.pb.go. This commits re-runs protoc so the two are back in sync (but the changes were comments only).
LarryRuane
changed the title
|
I'm merging this because it's only comments and documentation. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a follow-on to PR #495, which changed the comments in
service.protobut didn't regenerateservice.pb.go. This commits re-runsprotoc(the protobuf compiler) so the two are back in sync (but the changes were comments only).Regenerating the protobuf files can be done by running
make.As a side note, it may have been better to not source-control these generated files (maybe we can do that in a future PR); the tradeoff is that the current approach doesn't require lightwalletd software developers to install
protoc, whereas if we made that change, they would. (It's probably possible to havemakeinstall protoc, similar to how the zcashd build installs rust; this also ensures that the correct version of rust is used.)In practice, it doesn't matter much either way, because the
.protofiles rarely change.This PR also regenerates an HTML file that documents the gRPC interface, see https://zcash.readthedocs.io/en/latest/lightwalletd/index.html
It doesn't appear this is being maintained, or at least it's out of date, it doesn't include
GetSubtreeRoots, for example.