* Added BlockStore.DeleteBlock()
* Added initial block pruner prototype
* wip
* Added BlockStore.PruneBlocks()
* Added consensus setting for block pruning
* Added BlockStore base
* Error on replay if base does not have blocks
* Handle missing blocks when sending VoteSetMaj23Message
* Error message tweak
* Properly update blockstore state
* Error message fix again
* blockchain: ignore peer missing blocks
* Added FIXME
* Added test for block replay with truncated history
* Handle peer base in blockchain reactor
* Improved replay error handling
* Added tests for Store.PruneBlocks()
* Fix non-RPC handling of truncated block history
* Panic on missing block meta in needProofBlock()
* Updated changelog
* Handle truncated block history in RPC layer
* Added info about earliest block in /status RPC
* Reorder height and base in blockchain reactor messages
* Updated changelog
* Fix tests
* Appease linter
* Minor review fixes
* Non-empty BlockStores should always have base > 0
* Update code to assume base > 0 invariant
* Added blockstore tests for pruning to 0
* Make sure we don't prune below the current base
* Added BlockStore.Size()
* config: added retain_blocks recommendations
* Update v1 blockchain reactor to handle blockstore base
* Added state database pruning
* Propagate errors on missing validator sets
* Comment tweaks
* Improved error message
Co-Authored-By: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
* use ABCI field ResponseCommit.retain_height instead of retain-blocks config option
* remove State.RetainHeight, return value instead
* fix minor issues
* rename pruneHeights() to pruneBlocks()
* noop to fix GitHub borkage
Co-authored-by: Anton Kaliaev <anton.kalyaev@gmail.com>
* format: add format cmd & goimport repo
- replaced format command
- added goimports to format command
- ran goimports
Signed-off-by: Marko Baricevic <marbar3778@yahoo.com>
* fix outliers & undo proto file changes
BREAKING
Example response:
```json
{
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"id": "",
"result": {
"height": "2109",
"txs_results": null,
"begin_block_events": null,
"end_block_events": null,
"validator_updates": null,
"consensus_param_updates": null
}
}
```
Old result consisted of ABCIResponses struct and height. Exposing
internal ABCI structures (which we store in state package) in RPC seems
bad to me for the following reasons:
1) high risk of breaking the API when somebody changes internal structs
(HAPPENED HERE!)
2) RPC is aware of ABCI, which I'm not sure we want
