Remove unnecessary check during add-warm-message command #50
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
|
You have successfully added a new CodeQL configuration |
pr0n00gler
requested review from
ratik,
NeverHappened,
albertandrejev,
zavgorodnii,
foxpy,
quasisamurai,
sotnikov-s,
swelf19 and
oldremez
sotnikov-s
reviewed
Apr 6, 2023
NeverHappened
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2023
oldremez
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2023
sotnikov-s
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2023
foxpy
approved these changes
Apr 7, 2023
zavgorodnii
approved these changes
Apr 7, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR removes a couple of checks during
add-wam-message executecommand:hasContractcheck is useless in a case of complex contract instantiation during genesis. For example, wheninstantiate-contract(orexecute) message populates another contract instantiation during its work. The function is not able to properly build contract address for such contract because of instance id inconsistency, that's why we decided to remove this check;hasAccountBalancesince it cannot properly check balance on consumer chains since there is nostakingmodule anymore.