This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 31, 2024. It is now read-only.
reward address validation #341
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
isSerge
reviewed
Sep 22, 2022
|
Wonderful, thanks @isSerge |
isSerge
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2022
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Solves #336
Few words explaining this PR, it will be wordy but worth reading.
I couldn't find a good function to import from
polkatodwhich will validate the reward address insr25519format.So, I exported the backend function to validate that (we were already doing the validation on the backend). However, the exposed functions are always
asyncbecause oftauri invoke.This new validation function being
async, had caused more troubles than I expected, and had to create new extra variables to get around the problems.@isSerge please review the new code, maybe the same functionality can be achieved with simpler logic, but however I tried, it was causing some minor bugs in places. That is the best I can come up with.