-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
refactor!: avoid cloning storage prefixes #92
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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 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 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 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
I wonder if we should use
&[u8]
instead of enforcing a static lifetime. I can't really think of any, but maybe there is some use case where the storage key is not known at compile-time for some reason?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.
@birchmd Can we merge this as is in order to fix the external issue? I would suggest addressing the change to return
&[u8]
in a separate issue/PR due to the issue described below.Returning
&[u8]
is the better option and it works for all traits exceptAccessControllable
. For the other traits, the function which returns the storage prefix has parameter&self
, so returning&[u8]
(without lifetime specifier) is fine.As of now,
AccessControllable::acl_storage_prefix
cannot take&self
due to this usage ofDefault::default()
. Therefore the return value ofacl_storage_prefix
must have a lifetime specifier. I think we have the following options:AccessControllable
to not rely onDefault
. Then return&[u8]
from all trait methods that return the storage prefix.&[u8]
and acceptAccessControllable
as an outlier whose storage prefix function returns&'static [u8]
.&'static [u8]
is not possible.What do you think?
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.
Sure, we can merge this as-is. I think doing the refactor of
AccessControllable
so that all traits can use&[u8]
is probably the "right" thing to do, but without a clear use-case it's low priority to actually do it. For I think it's fine to file an issue here on GitHub that this is something we might want to do in the future (or put out a bounty for).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.
Tracked by issue #93.