feat(shards): Support Non-Sequential Shard IDs #1389
Draft
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
Contributor
Author
|
#1385 related |
DonovanDMC
suggested changes
Jun 17, 2022
DonovanDMC
approved these changes
Jun 19, 2022
Contributor
DonovanDMC
left a comment
DonovanDMC
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as far as I can tell, this works fine
DonovanDMC
reviewed
Jun 19, 2022
Contributor
Author
|
Marking this as a draft until #1384 is merged, as it makes more sense to just do these together rather then immediately deprecating options.shardIDs |
DonovanDMC
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds support for non-sequential shardsIDs to be used in eris. Currently I wrote it to override firstShardID and lastShardID if any numbers exist in the array. But I can see valid cases for the following as well:
Please let me know if I should change the logic to reflect one of these other states or to something entirely different if someone has a better idea.
I have performed basic testing of this and seems fine, but I want to test it more thoroughly before we merge.
Closes #1385