make type filtering consistent with f+1 threshold used in other consensus checks - #341
Closed
ettec wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
make type filtering consistent with f+1 threshold used in other consensus checks#341ettec wants to merge 1 commit into
ettec wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
ettec
marked this pull request as ready for review
October 29, 2025 17:43
product-security-plaid-production
Bot
requested review from
amit-momin,
fernandezlautaro and
kidambisrinivas
October 29, 2025 17:43
ettec
enabled auto-merge
October 29, 2025 17:43
|
Contributor
Author
|
Change put into PR -> (#328) |
auto-merge was automatically disabled
October 31, 2025 11:50
Pull request was closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
https://smartcontract-it.atlassian.net/browse/CAPPL-1086
Type filtering should not use the type with the highest count, it should consider a type with >= f+1 count to be a valid outcome and fail if more than one type has >= f+1 count, i.e. there is more than one potential outcome as this is ambiguous