Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Revert balances amount to U64 and introduce new amountU128 getter #2472

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 5, 2024
Merged

Revert balances amount to U64 and introduce new amountU128 getter #2472

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 5, 2024

Conversation

rafal-ch
Copy link
Contributor

@rafal-ch rafal-ch commented Dec 5, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

This PR partially reverts the changes introduced in the balances indexation PR.

In particular:

  • reverts the type of amount in the Balance GraphQL type back to U64
  • introduces a new field amountU128 in the Balance GraphQL type
  • reverts the FuelClient::balance() function to return u64. There is no balance_u128() function added to the FuelClient for now.

image

This is done to maintain the full backward compatibility on the GraphQL level, internally the total balance is still processed using u128.

Before requesting review

  • I have reviewed the code myself

@rafal-ch rafal-ch marked this pull request as ready for review December 5, 2024 10:36
@rafal-ch rafal-ch requested a review from a team December 5, 2024 10:38
AurelienFT
AurelienFT approved these changes Dec 5, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@AurelienFT AurelienFT left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't want to start adding a deprecation notice to the first one ?

@xgreenx xgreenx merged commit 95dfeb3 into master Dec 5, 2024
31 checks passed
@xgreenx xgreenx deleted the rafal/add_amount_u128_endpoint branch December 5, 2024 22:58
@rafal-ch
Copy link
Contributor Author

rafal-ch commented Dec 6, 2024

We don't want to start adding a deprecation notice to the first one ?

Tbh, I'm not sure if we want to deprecate this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@AurelienFT AurelienFT AurelienFT approved these changes

@xgreenx xgreenx xgreenx approved these changes

@Dentosal Dentosal Awaiting requested review from Dentosal Dentosal is a code owner

@MitchTurner MitchTurner Awaiting requested review from MitchTurner MitchTurner is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@rafal-ch @xgreenx @AurelienFT