Clarify missing nonce use #2067
Open
Conversation
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
|
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
The way
possible_next_nonceis calculated wasn't explicitly defined, previously using the term "derived", making it harder to understand whether missing nonces should be inspected when creating new transaction or trying to get existing transactions unstuck.The changes include more explicit language, as well as minor changes more aligned with how Nakamoto works (no more mention of microblcks).
Type of Change
Does this introduce a breaking change?
No, just docs were updated
Are documentation updates required?
It would be nice if the API docs were updated too, since the reason I came here (and asked on Discord) was because the API docs didn't seem to be clear enough
Checklist
npm run testpasses