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

[move] Fix Escrow example and add tests #937

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 23, 2022
Merged

[move] Fix Escrow example and add tests #937

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 23, 2022

Conversation

666lcz
Copy link
Contributor

@666lcz 666lcz commented Mar 18, 2022

This PR fixes the existing Escrow example and add tests. In subsequent PRs, I will implement

@666lcz 666lcz force-pushed the chris/test-scenario branch 2 times, most recently from d711686 to 75271b4 Compare March 18, 2022 23:27
@666lcz 666lcz marked this pull request as ready for review March 18, 2022 23:28
@666lcz 666lcz changed the title [WIP][move] Add tests for Escrow [move] Fix Escrow example and add tests Mar 18, 2022
@@ -46,7 +47,9 @@ module DeFi::Escrow {

/// Trusted third party can swap compatible objects
public fun swap<T1: key + store, T2: key + store>(
obj1: EscrowedObj<T1, T2>, obj2: EscrowedObj<T1, T2>
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed a typo here: the type for obj2 should be EscrowedObj<T2, T1> instead of EscrowedObj<T1, T2>

@666lcz 666lcz force-pushed the chris/test-scenario branch 3 times, most recently from 932173c to d9a3291 Compare March 19, 2022 02:20
Copy link
Collaborator

@sblackshear sblackshear left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for improving this!

@666lcz 666lcz force-pushed the chris/test-scenario branch from d9a3291 to 6e9642f Compare March 23, 2022 20:20
@666lcz 666lcz merged commit 0e007eb into main Mar 23, 2022
@666lcz 666lcz deleted the chris/test-scenario branch March 23, 2022 21:38
mwtian added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 12, 2022
Currently `BlockSynchronizer` steps have 2s timeout. They seem a bit short considering
- Roundtrip to other nodes may take multiple secs
- Other nodes may be busy
- Large payload may need to be loaded from disk.

For `certificates_synchronize_timeout` and `payload_availability_timeout`, only one response is needed within timeout to make progress. However 2s still seems too short. Maybe these timeouts can be 10s~20s instead.
mwtian added a commit to mwtian/sui that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2022
Currently `BlockSynchronizer` steps have 2s timeout. They seem a bit short considering
- Roundtrip to other nodes may take multiple secs
- Other nodes may be busy
- Large payload may need to be loaded from disk.

For `certificates_synchronize_timeout` and `payload_availability_timeout`, only one response is needed within timeout to make progress. However 2s still seems too short. Maybe these timeouts can be 10s~20s instead.
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.

3 participants