add support WriteBatch operations #5113
Conversation
|
In the e2e integration tests, benchmark test has been added and 2 speed tables appear with and without the use of batch. 
|
pfi79
force-pushed
the
batch-operation
branch
2 times, most recently
from
31c3dbf to
9776b45
Compare
| ) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| func RunInvokeOnlyPutState(n *nwo.Network, orderer *nwo.Orderer, peer *nwo.Peer, fn string, startBatch bool, initial int) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use a more expressive variable name than initial? It is not obvious what this is...
And shouldn't startBatch really be called useWriteBatch to be consistent?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. In this case it is passing a sign that the chaincode should call startBatch or not.
startWB, _ := strconv.ParseBool(args[0])
if startWB {
stub.StartWriteBatch()
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm gonna run these tests
| useWriteBatch (on peer) | StartWriteBatch (on chaincode) |
|---|---|
| true | false |
| false | true |
| true | true |
|
|
||
| switch function { | ||
| case "invoke": | ||
| return t.put(stub, args[1:]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only a single argument is passed right? e.g. args[1] , better to use a variable with an expressive name to make it clear what exactly is being passed here.
| }, | ||
| Entry("without write batch", "without write batch", false), | ||
| Entry("with write batch", "with write batch", true), | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to read at least one of the keys in a chaincode query after writing the transaction, to ensure end-to-end behavior is consistent regardless of useWriteBatch.
sampleconfig/core.yaml
Outdated
| @@ -659,6 +659,14 @@ chaincode: | |||
| # Format for the chaincode container logs | |||
| format: "%{color}%{time:2006-01-02 15:04:05.000 MST} [%{module}] %{shortfunc} -> %{level:.4s} %{id:03x}%{color:reset} %{message}" | |||
|
|
|||
| # AdditionalParams section for parameters that are passed to chaincode | |||
| # to specify additional operation modes in which the peer operates. | |||
| additionalParams: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe runtimeParams would be a better name than additionalParams in the config.
I realize the proto is called ChaincodeAdditionalParams, but we can give it a more expressive name in the context of the config.
pfi79
force-pushed
the
batch-operation
branch
4 times, most recently
from
52b3b8c to
4790b27
Compare
Signed-off-by: Fedor Partanskiy <[email protected]>
pfi79
force-pushed
the
batch-operation
branch
from
4790b27 to
cc24ab3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall looks good to me, while I think we should take care to add tests to make sure behaviour remain consistent as @manish-sethi mentioned is his comment hyperledger/fabric-rfcs#58 (comment)
Thanks @C0rWin |
#5086