@superboyiii @roman-khimov, I suspect that you are the ones that use this plugin.
I have been using StateDumper, but as I verified, StorageDumper was updated by @Ashuaidehao and it looks like you both are using StorageDumper.

In this case, I deleted StateDumper.

@superboyiii @roman-khimov, I suspect that you are the ones that use this plugin. I have been using StateDumper, but as I verified, StorageDumper was updated by @Ashuaidehao and it looks like you both are using StorageDumper.

In this case, I deleted StateDumper.

My suggestion is DO NOT DELETE IT DIRECTLT, but mark it as [Obsolete], no matter there is someone using it or not, we should not just delete an existing thing without telling the eco-system and warn them.

@superboyiii @roman-khimov, I suspect that you are the ones that use this plugin. I have been using StateDumper, but as I verified, StorageDumper was updated by @Ashuaidehao and it looks like you both are using StorageDumper.
In this case, I deleted StateDumper.

My suggestion is DO NOT DELETE IT DIRECTLT, but mark it as [Obsolete], no matter there is someone using it or not, we should not just delete an existing thing without telling the eco-system and warn them.

Both plugins are the same @Jim8y .
There is no sense the leave DUPLICATED code here in the core.

I updated my last comment because I thought the message was from @superboyiii...aehuahea

There is no sense in what you said @Jim8y, you should check the code first.
As I said above.

I updated my last comment because I thought the message was from @superboyiii...aehuahea

There is no sense in what you said @Jim8y, you should check the code first. As I said above.

I am not saying you should keep duplicate code, what I mean is you should not delete existing thing directly. Its duplicated, but its also a neo product, a product should not be removed all of a sudden, but give a warning first, then remove later.

I updated my last comment because I thought the message was from @superboyiii...aehuahea
There is no sense in what you said @Jim8y, you should check the code first. As I said above.

I am not saying you should keep duplicate code, what I mean is you should not delete existing thing directly. Its duplicated, but its also a neo product, a product should not be removed all of a sudden, but give a warning first, then remove later.

I understand your point of view. However, this is not the case now @Jim8y.

Furthermore, it is COMPLETELLY SIMPLE TO MODIFY to the other plugin instead, if someone is currently using the StateDumper.
However, I doubt someone is using it because perhaps StorageDumper fixed a minor problem that StateDumper had in some edge cases.

You can still do the same, i just suggest to do it latter, after one release. But i am ok if other coredevs think its fine.

I would suggest you write a readme to introduce the plugin.

I would suggest you write a readme to introduce the plugin.

That a good idea. I will check how current Readme is.

If they have the same functionally and one can be replaced with another then deletion is fine and it'd just be a release note --- "if you're using X, please use Y now". And it's not a very popular plugin, not RpcServer for sure.

We have a SaveStorageBatch setting in NeoGo (https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/blob/master/docs/node-configuration.md) that exports the same data and then we have https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/blob/master/scripts/compare-dumps/compare-dumps.go to compare dumps which we do from time to time (I hope we'll be doing it less often after #1526). From what I see here, the dump format stays the same, so it's perfectly fine for us.