-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
docs(mempool): fix example in priority_nonce_spec #24971
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe priority value for a transaction in an example table within the mempool priority nonce specification documentation was updated from 7 to 90. No other content, diagrams, or descriptions were changed. Changes
Estimated code review effort1 (~2 minutes) ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
types/mempool/priority_nonce_spec.md (1)
146-146
: Typo: “priroity” → “priority”
Tiny spelling fix for clarity.-...nonce/priroity ordering scheme... +...nonce/priority ordering scheme...
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Knowledge Base: Disabled due to Reviews > Disable Knowledge Base setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
types/mempool/priority_nonce_spec.md
(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: Summary
🔇 Additional comments (1)
types/mempool/priority_nonce_spec.md (1)
118-120
: Change looks correct and keeps narrative consistent
The updated priority90
now matches the text in the explanation paragraph and the mempool-order list below. No further issues spotted.
@thomas-nguy can you provide some more context on the issue here? |
Hi @aljo242 , The spec seems to provide a wrong example If you look at the Case 4 The priority table show Priority 7 For User C transaction nonce 3
but it should be 90 according to the diagram and result order. I think the whole point of this example is to show that even though User C transaction nonce 3 has the highest priority (90), it is still ordered last due to the graph constraints |
Description
Closes: #XXXX
Fixing a small typo which may lead to confusion when reading the spec
Summary by CodeRabbit