docs(proto): correct stale block-range comment on SyncAccountVault/SyncAccountStorageMaps - #2529
Open
pplmaverick wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
…ncAccountStorageMaps Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NFQbFgMuXUiwfujcPFyLqy
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
The doc comments on
SyncAccountVaultRequestandSyncAccountStorageMapsRequest(proto/proto/rpc.proto, added in #1176 / #1140) state that
block_tomust be within 30 blocks of the chain tip, but no such check exists
in the implementation —
StateView::scope_rangeonly rejectsranges that extend beyond the tip (crates/store/src/state/view/mod.rs).
I traced this back to the original commit (99c9848, feat: asset
vault sync #1176) that introduced both endpoints — the 30-block
constraint was never implemented, so this isn't a regression, just
a stale/aspirational comment that could mislead client implementers
into adding unnecessary defensive checks.
Changes
Updated both doc comments to describe actual current behavior:
only rejects ranges where
block_toexceeds the chain tip.No behavioral change — comment-only fix.