-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 139
Add support for encoding Address to/from new StrKeys
#801
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
eb4658a
Extend Address to support going to/from new ScAddress types
Shaptic e424e69
Add missing test cases for completeness
Shaptic 45e7b15
Prevent CBs and LPs from being used as arguments
Shaptic 914e264
Clarify what "output" means in the docstring
Shaptic File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wondering if this validation is worthwhile as convenience for clients or is it possibly too opinionated for this layer. Maybe the contract fn wants to receive cb/lp addresses as opaque data of which that intent is not known here at this layer and appears like it could inadvertently trip on such cases?
If this validation were removed where would the problem with cb/lp addresses occur further downstream? Would simulation catch it? Is it feasible to let the lower downstream layer be the source of truth rather than duplicating some of that rule here in js layer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It can't/shouldn't.
Theoretically yes, this is higher-level validation to provide a useful error early rather than punting it to later at the simulation/execution layer. It was actually requested/suggested by the community to implement this here: Discord thread,
I think it's a little overzealous since as you said it will be caught later, but it does provide a better devx experience to see it prevented early. I think if someone truly wants to do this, they'd file an issue and demonstrate a real need at which point we'd do the whole "okay but why?" back and forth.