clarify gossip sources wording #4049
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
jtraglia
approved these changes
Dec 17, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 verbage
via both gossip and non-gossip sourcesimplies that we are fetching BOTH from gossip, and from RPC.I believe that this rule would be closer to the truth if we instead change the wording to
via gossip or non-gossip sourcesso that it correctly implies that we've either seen something on gossip, or fetched it via RPC, and not imply we've done both.This problem was evident in #4015 and the rationale for the wording was because it's used everywhere else, so this fixes that.