fix: fix slice init length #4767
Merged
+2
−2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Release Candidate ( main <- dev ) v2024.2.0
Frozen
approved these changes
Oct 4, 2024
Collaborator
|
Thanks! |
GheisMohammadi
approved these changes
Oct 5, 2024
Contributor
Author
|
friendly ping~ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Issue
The intention here should be to initialize a slice with a capacity of length rather than initializing the length of this slice.
The online demo: https://go.dev/play/p/q1BcVCmvidW
Test
Unit Test Coverage
Before:
After:
Test/Run Logs
Operational Checklist
Does this PR introduce backward-incompatible changes to the on-disk data structure and/or the over-the-wire protocol?. (If no, skip to question 8.)
YES|NO
Describe the migration plan.. For each flag epoch, describe what changes take place at the flag epoch, the anticipated interactions between upgraded/non-upgraded nodes, and any special operational considerations for the migration.
Describe how the plan was tested.
How much minimum baking period after the last flag epoch should we allow on Pangaea before promotion onto mainnet?
What are the planned flag epoch numbers and their ETAs on Pangaea?
What are the planned flag epoch numbers and their ETAs on mainnet?
Note that this must be enough to cover baking period on Pangaea.
What should node operators know about this planned change?
Does this PR introduce backward-incompatible changes NOT related to on-disk data structure and/or over-the-wire protocol? (If no, continue to question 11.)
YES|NO
Does the existing
node.shcontinue to work with this change?What should node operators know about this change?
Does this PR introduce significant changes to the operational requirements of the node software, such as >20% increase in CPU, memory, and/or disk usage?
TODO