Add human readable name of chain state to info message.

[minfrin]

The message "chain state forced to 1 due to prior result found"
contains an internal enum index rather than the name of the
chain state. Replace with the human readable meaning.

[flowerysong]

I feel like it would be cleaner to expose and reuse the existing mechanism in libopenarc for doing this translation (see e.g.

OpenARC/libopenarc/arc.c

Line 3666 in eb430db

return arc_code_to_name(chainstatus, msg->arc_cstate);

)

[minfrin]

Can you take a look at the updated patch?

[flowerysong]

Ah, yeah, that's even better.

[minfrin]

Thanks for this.

[minfrin]

Quick ping on this, any news?

[minfrin]

@flowerysong Would it be possible to merge this one?

[glts]

@minfrin Note that the patch should not be merged as-is because it is out of sync with the development branch.

The pull request must target the develop branch, not master. And then it must be updated in order to compile, eg as done here: https://sources.debian.org/patches/openarc/1.0.0%7Ebeta3+dfsg-1%7Eexp1/chain-state-name.patch/

(I have no info on the status of the project though, it seems abandoned.)

[flowerysong]

@minfrin This project has been dead for years, unfortunately. I optimistically believed @martinbogo's claim that the project was alive again (#123 (comment)) but that was clearly just an attempt to placate people and not an actual commitment to expend even the slightest effort on it.

[minfrin]

@minfrin Note that the patch should not be merged as-is because it is out of sync with the development branch.

The pull request must target the develop branch, not master. And then it must be updated in order to compile, eg as done here: https://sources.debian.org/patches/openarc/1.0.0%7Ebeta3+dfsg-1%7Eexp1/chain-state-name.patch/

(I have no info on the status of the project though, it seems abandoned.)

Getting back to this one.

Replaced this PR with a new one: #158

[minfrin]

@minfrin This project has been dead for years, unfortunately. I optimistically believed @martinbogo's claim that the project was alive again (#123 (comment)) but that was clearly just an attempt to placate people and not an actual commitment to expend even the slightest effort on it.

I'm happy to submit patches, are there people willing to review them?