-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
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
Misc documentation fix #1139
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Misc documentation fix #1139
Conversation
@@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ func BatchFromProtobuf(proto *commonpb.Batch) (*Batch, error) { | |||
type Attestation struct { | |||
*BatchHeader | |||
|
|||
// AttestedAt is the time the attestation was made | |||
// AttestedAt is the time the attestation was made in nanoseconds |
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.
Why not change the variable name itself to AttestedAtNano
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.
It's better to remain consistent with other timestamps in naming. I don't have objection if one wants to get all timestamps renamed by incorporating time units though.
disperser/dataapi/docs/v1/V1_docs.go
Outdated
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.
Are these all auto-generated? Might be good to add to https://github.com/Layr-Labs/eigenda/blob/master/.gitattributes if so
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.
we are using swagger here
}, | ||
"salt": { | ||
"description": "Allow same blob to be dispersed multiple times within the same reservation period", | ||
"type": "integer" |
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.
Interesting. Why were these docs not updated as part of the other PRs? Are these just hand crated? If not, should we have a ci to check that they have been regenerated correctly?
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.
I think we should
Co-authored-by: Samuel Laferriere <[email protected]>
Why are these changes needed?
Checks