[FIX] Improve writing problems + fix several typos #332
Conversation
state/state-network.md
Outdated
| #### Contract Code | ||
|
|
||
| These data types represent the bytecode for a contract. | ||
|
|
||
| > NOTE: Because CREATE2 opcode allows for redeployment of new code at an existing address_hash, we MUST randomly distribute contract code storage across the DHT keyspace to avoid hotspots developing in the network for any contract that has had many different code deployments. Were we to use the path based *high-bits* approach for computing the content-id, it would be possible for a single location in the network to accumulate a large number of contract code objects that all live in roughly the same space. | ||
| Problematic! | ||
| > NOTE: Because CREATE2 opcode allows for redeployment of new code at an existing address*hash, we MUST randomly distribute contract code storage across the DHT keyspace to avoid hotspots developing in the network for any contract that has had many different code deployments. Were we to use the path based \_high-bits* approach for computing the content-id, it would be possible for a single location in the network to accumulate a large number of contract code objects that all live in roughly the same space. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a faulty change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great, thanks for fixing typos, removing trailing whitespaces, fixing notes.
But regarding list styles, indents, emphasis markers and so on (anything that does not break markdown specs), that seems like personal preference changes that are also difficult to maintain without having a linter applied in CI.
So in my opinion, these type of changes should get a linter added first for some consistent settings, else somebody else tomorrow might just set them all back to their liking.
correct 👍 do we have a general linter for repo? if we dont have a proper linter for repo we can implement a structure for this one |
No, we don't. I've created an issue for this some time back: #321 My suggestion would be to adjust this PR to only contain actual fixes. Any additional PR that then introduces linting is highly welcomed of course :) |
nice ! yeah of course , i will change necessary changes on this pull req 👍 and yeah i enjoy giving structural improve :)) i try my best for making another pull req for linting purpose 👍 |
No description provided.