Explicitly declare missing daemon runtime configuration #16163
Merged
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
|
!ci-build-me |
|
!ci-nightly-me |
martyall
changed the title
|
Nightly results here: https://buildkite.com/o-1-labs-2/mina-end-to-end-nightlies/builds/2632 everything passes but the |
georgeee
approved these changes
Oct 2, 2024
martyall
force-pushed
the
martin/remove-phantom-config
branch
from
f70b1e5 to
d3988b0
Compare
|
!ci-build-me |
|
!ci-build-me |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The Problem
We allow certain values to be picked up during
minadaemon configuration loading that are not explicitly part of the runtime config type. This means thatRuntime_config.tis not the proper type to describe the values that are allowed.Solution
maybe_from_configandor_from_configinMina_cli_entrypointto make use of the proper types.Quickcheckgenerator instances inRuntime_config(rather than extending these for the new fields, we should just delete them since no one will miss them)