refactor: add horizon support to tap-agent #594
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Inacio <[email protected]>
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13059209804Details
💛 - Coveralls |
| pub fn as_v1(self) -> Option<tap_graph::SignedReceipt> { | ||
| match self { | ||
| TapReceipt::V1(receipt) => Some(receipt), | ||
| _ => None, | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn as_v2(self) -> Option<tap_graph::v2::SignedReceipt> { | ||
| match self { | ||
| TapReceipt::V2(receipt) => Some(receipt), | ||
| _ => None, | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn get_v1_receipt(&self) -> Option<&tap_graph::SignedReceipt> { | ||
| match self { | ||
| TapReceipt::V1(receipt) => Some(receipt), | ||
| _ => None, | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn get_v2_receipt(&self) -> Option<&tap_graph::v2::SignedReceipt> { | ||
| match self { | ||
| TapReceipt::V2(receipt) => Some(receipt), | ||
| _ => None, | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this necessary with the v1 v2 separation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just for Aggregation, it's especially important that we can only aggregate V1 Receipts into V1 Ravs and for V2 as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't the enum handle that? I'm trying to understand how a V2 receipt could match as V1.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do you suggest doing it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm asking you, why you think this won't work:
pub fn get_receipt(&self) -> &tap_graph::v2::SignedReceipt {
match self {
TapReceipt::V2(receipt) => receipt,
TapReceipt::V1(receipt) => receipt,
}
}Maybe I'm missing something!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Each one has a different type, the compiler would say tap_graph::SignedReceipt is not an instance of tap_graph::v2::SignedReceipt
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, I see that now, the v1 having no similar label threw me.
But do the SignedReceipt types not implement some shared behavior? But it doesn't have to look so confusing?
No description provided.