-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
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
fix: verifyEncoding should revert changes in verifiable data #318
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Style: do we want to use
defer
here? AFAIK, no where else in rsmt2d usesdefer
, primarily because it's a Go-specific thing that doesn't translate well into a language like C (C being a lower common denominator for readability). I don't have strong opinions, so opening for discussion.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'm in favor of using defer because it ensures cleanup operations are closely tied to their corresponding setups. This not only makes the code more robust by preventing omission in multiple return paths but also aligns with good programming practices by keeping related actions together, improving both maintainability and readability.
An alternative would be to manually add a revert of the addition to the data slice in every return statement, which could be error-prone.
Another option is to adopt an immutable approach by creating a copy of the data that includes the extra share, ensuring the original data remains unmodified. However, this method would lead to extra allocations, which is why I haven't used it here.
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 see.
Hmmmm. Perhaps creating a copy wouldn't be so bad if it's only for a single row or column. Could you open an issue that someone can work on to investigate the actual performance impact?
Other that than, no further comments. Not blocking merging.
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.
Defer translates well into C or any other language by calling the deferred line after everything else, so we don't gain much by going with the alternative approach and only lose time (investigating performance impact through the issue) and readability(no defer based grouping). Overall, I don't think opening and spending time on the issue is worth it
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.
Ok. I'll defer (get it 😉) to you guys on this.