Skip to content
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

Correct the paths for the computation of the RPC API hash and WIT API hash #2142

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 18, 2024

Conversation

MathieuDutSik
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation

The RPC API hash and WIT API hash were showing the same value which is not what one expects.

Proposal

The explanation was that the paths were incorrect. Once corrected, we obtained reasonable values.

Test Plan

We check that the hashes are different.

Release Plan

Not relevant.

Links

@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ impl VersionInfo {
.into();

let rpc_hash =
get_hash(paths, &metadata, "linera-rpc", "tests/staged/formats.yaml")?.into();
get_hash(paths, &metadata, "linera-rpc", "proto/rpc.proto")?.into();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The previous file is more like tests/snapshots/format__format.yaml.snap.

@Twey
Copy link
Contributor

Twey commented Jun 17, 2024

Thanks for looking into this!

@MathieuDutSik MathieuDutSik marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2024 15:20
@MathieuDutSik MathieuDutSik merged commit 1578c54 into linera-io:main Jun 18, 2024
3 checks passed
@MathieuDutSik MathieuDutSik deleted the rpc_wit_hash branch June 18, 2024 11:05
@@ -103,14 +103,17 @@ fn get_hash(

let package_glob = format!("{}/{}", package_root.display(), glob);

let mut n_file = 0;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

file_count

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