spelling corrections

Co-authored-by: Lasaro Camargos <lasaro@informal.systems>
This commit is contained in:
Jasmina Malicevic
2022-11-14 10:08:12 +01:00
committed by GitHub
co-authored by Lasaro Camargos
parent 477be5b2ea
commit 909989809d
+2 -2
View File
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ cannot lie about who the sender of the transaction is.
*Transactions received from users*
For transactions submitted via `boradcastTxCommit`, the `SenderID` field is empty.
For transactions submitted via `broadcastTxCommit`, the `SenderID` field is empty.
**Note** Do we have mechanisms in place to handle cases when `broadcastTxCommit` submits
failing transactions (can this be a form of attack)?
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ The question is which one is more costly, doing `CheckTx` more then once, or kee
As said, this code will [never be executed](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/blob/ff0f98892f24aac11e46aeff2b6d2c0ad816701a/mempool/v0/clist_mempool.go#L239) for transactions whose signature is found
in the cache.
Instead of remembering the cached transactions, we could have had a valid/invalit bit per transaction within the cache. As transactions themselves do not
Instead of remembering the cached transactions, we could have had a valid/invalid bit per transaction within the cache. As transactions themselves do not
store such information and we expect this scenario to be unlikely, instead of increasing the footprint of all transactions in the cache,
we opted to keep a map of transaction signature if the transaction is in the cache, but is invalid. Alternatively, the cache could keep two lists, one for valid, and one for invalid transactions.
This modifies the following pieces of code as follows (this is just a prototype and does not include