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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Add MPTIssue to STIssue #5200
Add MPTIssue to STIssue #5200
Changes from 4 commits
e0ffb63
8f3bbc4
65533c3
6544945
ea1ecc4
4402951
cc4a9c0
10ffdf1
cca7133
1ae94a8
0e8c062
97f6d8a
166d638
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Can you pls replace this with
operator<=>
? It could look like thisThere 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 would be great if we could give
std::strong_ordering
tooperator<=>(Issue const& lhs, Issue const& rhs)
but I wouldn't want that change in this PR even if it is correct one (and I am not assuming that it is)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.
Sure, will do. I actually added it in MPT-V2 (still a long way from release).
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.
this is correct as long as we have exactly these two types i.e.
Issue, MPTIssue
insideissue_
. As soon as that changes it will be no longer correct, meaning that this code is brittle. This is why I would prefer index comparison instead.Check warning on line 93 in include/xrpl/protocol/STIssue.h
Codecov / codecov/patch
include/xrpl/protocol/STIssue.h#L93
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.
This should be
return asset_.holds<TIss>();
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.
could we replace this with
friend std::weak_ordering operator<=>
as well ? Also, we should not needoperator!=
anymoreCheck warning on line 151 in include/xrpl/protocol/STIssue.h
Codecov / codecov/patch
include/xrpl/protocol/STIssue.h#L151
Check warning on line 153 in include/xrpl/protocol/STIssue.h
Codecov / codecov/patch
include/xrpl/protocol/STIssue.h#L153
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.
also replace with
friend std::weak_ordering operator<=>