Skip to content

[v1.4] Merge feature branch: Revert removal of support for storage format v1 #3979

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

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

turbolent
Copy link
Member

@turbolent turbolent commented May 28, 2025

Work towards #3963

Description


  • Targeted PR against master branch
  • Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work
  • Code follows the standards mentioned here
  • Updated relevant documentation
  • Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
  • Added appropriate labels

@turbolent turbolent self-assigned this May 28, 2025
@turbolent turbolent requested a review from SupunS as a code owner May 28, 2025 16:12
Copy link

Cadence Benchstat comparison

This branch with compared with the base branch onflow:v1.4 commit 40155ae
The command for i in {1..N}; do go test ./... -run=XXX -bench=. -benchmem -shuffle=on; done was used.
Bench tests were run a total of 7 times on each branch.

Collapsed results for better readability

@turbolent turbolent changed the title [v1.4] Merge feature branch: Revert storage format v1 removal [v1.4] Merge feature branch: Revert removal of support for storage format v1 May 28, 2025
@turbolent turbolent added the Storage Breaking Change Breaks existing stored data (needs a storage migration) label May 28, 2025
@j1010001
Copy link
Member

j1010001 commented Jun 5, 2025

not needed after MN was upgraded to Cadence v1.6.0 in MN26 HCU 10

@j1010001 j1010001 closed this Jun 5, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Storage Breaking Change Breaks existing stored data (needs a storage migration)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants