Potential fix for issue #277 #281
Conversation
Also corrected a typo where fast place was using the count of the fast break check in its output
|
Did you test this? Pulling "potential fixes" is not a good idea for a large project. |
|
No, and I actually said that in the PR description... I don't have a hack client to properly test this. However, what I can say is that the check I removed is only false when there has been no delay between the last block and the current block. Additionally, because of the behavior of some systems the time may be incremented in variants that do not provide milli second accuracy. Thus increasing the likely hood of this check being problematic on some systems. |
|
I feel like that was specific enough that I added it on purpose, but for the life of me I can't come up with a reason why. |
|
I definitely thought it was odd. It seems like the most likely cause of the issue though imo. Either way, it gives you something to look at. |
Also corrected a typo where fast place was using the count of the fast break check in its output.
This is not tested, but it may resolve the issue.