-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
feat: Added in-memory storage for testing purposes #59
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
👋 Thanks for assigning @tnull as a reviewer! |
tnull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for looking into this!
Generally goes into the right direction, but we def. need to avoid re-allocating everything on every operation.
4980a75 to
25d57e3
Compare
|
@tnull Have done the required changes |
tnull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks much better, but I think we still need to handle global_version properly, even if we're currently not using it client-side.
|
🔔 1st Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
25d57e3 to
9012e95
Compare
tnull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One comment, will take another look once @tankyleo also had a chance to do a review round here.
9012e95 to
3b434d0
Compare
|
@tankyleo Can you please review it! |
|
🔔 3rd Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
|
🔔 4th Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
|
🔔 5th Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
tankyleo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the delay !
3b434d0 to
e0c31bb
Compare
|
@tankyleo Have done with the required changes! Can you please review it |
8003119 to
5898609
Compare
tnull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When testing integration with LDK Node locally I found that the tests are currently failing. I now opened #62 to add LDK Node integration tests to our CI here. It would be great if that could land first, and we could also add a CI job for the in-memory store as part of this PR then, ensuring the implementation actually works as expected.
|
🔔 1st Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
|
🔔 2nd Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
|
@Harshdev098 Please rebase now that #62 landed to make use of the new CI checks here. |
tnull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
2b64791 to
81ca808
Compare
tnull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please also make sure that the LDK Node CI is run against the in-memory store.
AFAICT this is still missing the part that runs the LDK Node integration test against the in-memory store to check functionality in a realistic setting?
81ca808 to
1f18bd8
Compare
|
🔔 5th Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
84cfed6 to
939559f
Compare
tnull
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, and now you're hitting the errors that I originally found when running LDK Node against the in-memory store. Very likely, they are due to the in-memory implementation behaving in an unexpected manner. We need to fix this before this PR can get merged. Please take a look, but let me know if you end up getting stuck or need some assistance figuring this out.
|
🔔 6th Reminder Hey @tankyleo! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
51a791d to
0168750
Compare
|
Hey @tnull Have updated the code and the unit test are passing against the ldk node tests but didn't understand what is the cause of integration failures |
92bd1e3 to
bd3eca4
Compare
bd3eca4 to
9ec0e79
Compare
9ec0e79 to
45fecd1
Compare
Have added in_memory store for testing purpose.
We can edit config file to use specific store either postgresql or memory