Account constructor in AccountMapper #1379
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
mossid
force-pushed
the
joon/673-am-constructor
branch
4 times, most recently
from
86db427
to
85e381e
Compare
mossid
changed the title
mossid
force-pushed
the
joon/673-am-constructor
branch
from
c054b94
to
928e60d
Compare
mossid
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 26, 2018
fix fix democoin fix tests pass lint last fix
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1379 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 63.72% 63.78% +0.05%
===========================================
Files 122 122
Lines 6776 6762 -14
===========================================
- Hits 4318 4313 -5
+ Misses 2211 2204 -7
+ Partials 247 245 -2 |
ebuchman
reviewed
Jun 26, 2018
| @@ -142,30 +139,6 @@ func (am AccountMapper) GetNextAccountNumber(ctx sdk.Context) int64 { | |||
| //---------------------------------------- | |||
| // misc. | |||
|
|
|||
| // Creates a new struct (or pointer to struct) from am.proto. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was there some reason we didn't just do this initially ?
Is it worth introducing a type AccountConstructor func() Account ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems this could be used in the unit tests as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
type ProtoAccount func() Account looks better for me, I think word 'proto' fits with the context.
Merged
x/auth/mapper_test.go
Outdated
| @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ func TestAccountMapperGetSet(t *testing.T) { | |||
|
|
|||
| // make context and mapper | |||
| ctx := sdk.NewContext(ms, abci.Header{}, false, log.NewNopLogger()) | |||
| mapper := NewAccountMapper(cdc, capKey, &BaseAccount{}) | |||
| mapper := NewAccountMapper(cdc, capKey, func() Account { return &BaseAccount{} }) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to update this to auth.ProtoBaseAccount?
|
Sorry @mossid , this needs to be rebased or have develop merged back in and fixed |
mossid
force-pushed
the
joon/673-am-constructor
branch
from
b34dfa5
to
3bfe957
Compare
mossid
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 5, 2018
fix fix democoin fix tests pass lint last fix apply requests
mossid
force-pushed
the
joon/673-am-constructor
branch
from
3bfe957
to
6c0b27f
Compare
mossid
force-pushed
the
joon/673-am-constructor
branch
from
6c0b27f
to
d0b64e6
Compare
mossid
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2018
fix fix democoin fix tests pass lint last fix apply requests fix build failing fix docs
fix fix democoin fix tests pass lint last fix apply requests fix build failing fix docs
mossid
force-pushed
the
joon/673-am-constructor
branch
from
d0b64e6
to
bc12880
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Closes: #673
Closes: #911