-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
feat: Separate TransactionRequest
and TransactionRequestBuilder
#605
Conversation
…into igamigo-tx-request-builder
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.
LGTM! TransactionRequest
looks a lot cleaner now.
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.
LGTM
@@ -1,65 +1,38 @@ | |||
//! Contains structures and functions related to transaction creation. |
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.
Should we keep this top level documentation? This is the docs that the rust docs pages will use to describe the whole mod.
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.
Yeah, I believe when I moved things around I removed it accidentally. also moved the struct header below the imports.
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.
Looks good! Thank you!
A potentially different alternative to error handling could have been to fail only on TransactionRequestBuilder::build()
method instead of on the individual property setters. But it has its own pros and cons, and if we decide to do it that way, it can be done in a different PR.
Closes #580