paritytech / paritytech/json-rpc-interface-spec
is the `childTrieKey` property of the `archive_v1_storage.storage` notification redundant?
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 37
- Forks
- 6
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
I'm probably missing something here, but will there ever be an instance in which the value of this field (childTrieKey property on thearchive_v1_storage.storage notification) differs from the value that has been passed as a parameter of the archive_v1_storage call?
If it's always the same, then I guess that this field is redundant... Is this the case?
If it's not redundant, then I guess that we should take that into account when designing v2 of chainHead, b/c the operationStorageItems notification doesn't have this field.
If it is redundant, then we should probably consider removing it in a hypothetical v2 of storage.
cc: @lexnv @jsdw
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Compare the archive_v1_storage call parameter with the childTrieKey field in its storage notification, then compare that behavior with chainHead_v1_follow's operationStorageItems notification. The work is done when the possible value differences are established and the v2 design decision is documented.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- api, backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100