Skip to content

Adding kernel_mmr_size and output_mmr_size to BlockHeaderPrintable#3329

Merged
antiochp merged 1 commit into
mimblewimble:masterfrom
DavidBurkett:master
May 22, 2020
Merged

Adding kernel_mmr_size and output_mmr_size to BlockHeaderPrintable#3329
antiochp merged 1 commit into
mimblewimble:masterfrom
DavidBurkett:master

Conversation

@DavidBurkett
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This is needed to completely rebuild a core::BlockHeader from JSON.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@antiochp antiochp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think if this is simply adding additional fields to the json it should be fine.

@quentinlesceller Any concerns here regarding the api?

👍 from me.

@hashmap
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

hashmap commented May 18, 2020

Strictly speaking it would require a minor version bump, some json bindings expect the exact match with their schema, speaking from my personal experience. However taking into consideration the nature of hard fork I'm not sure if we should bother to bump the version.

@DavidBurkett
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@hashmap Wow, that's a horrible idea to expect an exact match, but whatever. Are you referring to an API version of some sort though? I wasn't aware we had such a thing.

@hashmap
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

hashmap commented May 19, 2020

Yeah, I was quite surprised too to learn one day that I broke a java client by adding a filed, it's still a common case according to quick google search https://www.baeldung.com/jackson-deserialize-json-unknown-properties

Technically we have v1 and v2 apis, I suspect it could be a bit of pain to support v2 and v2.1, so I'd yank v2 and s/v2/v2.1/

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@quentinlesceller quentinlesceller left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@antiochp I think that we should assume that adding new field is okay. However changing or deleting existing fields is not. Most clients are okay with additional fields. So 👍 on my side (especially with the new HF version).

@quentinlesceller quentinlesceller modified the milestone: 4.0.0 May 21, 2020
@quentinlesceller
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'd be in favour of merging this now. What do you think @antiochp ?

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.

4 participants