-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 501
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
txnbuild: Reenable Multiplexed strkeys (SEP23 M-addresses) behind flags #3527
Merged
2opremio
merged 22 commits into
stellar:master
from
2opremio:3490-reenable-muptiplexed-addresses
Apr 14, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
22 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
efb9c3b
Re-enable M-key parsing in strkey package
2opremio a0bf286
Enable SEP23 parsing for MuxedAccounts (with separated functions)
2opremio 27a79c6
WIP: Add flag-protected support for SEP23 in txnbuild
2opremio 14ec0cb
Fix comment typos
2opremio 8546938
Address review feedback
2opremio f862efb
Address review comments
2opremio 0742e88
WIP: port more oeprations to the new interface
2opremio 3533829
Update all the remaining operations
2opremio d8e1e2a
Appease go vet
2opremio 29bf10c
Add CHANGELOG entry
2opremio 828be10
Update client memo check to support Muxed accounts
2opremio f77f352
Update strkey test cases with new format
2opremio 3b5df73
Implement new SEP23 encoding ordering
2opremio 32073d9
Address review comments
2opremio 5010f35
Remove decoding check (it's part of another PR)
2opremio 10c5ed4
Address review comments from leigh and add some tests
2opremio 265b601
Add more tests
2opremio 85a33de
Add client test
2opremio afa16c3
Fix problems after auto-review
2opremio 0a6beda
Add operation tests
2opremio 4bad428
Rename option in the changelog
2opremio 8caa781
Address review feedback
2opremio File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
Nit: I know this PR has been reviewed multiple times but I have one (simple) idea how to improve the API. Passing bool value to methods can be misleading (user need to check the description of the method to understand what is the param). We can create additional extra methods for each method accepting
withMuxedAccounts
.BuildXDR
as an example:BuildXDR(withMuxedAccounts bool) (xdr.Operation, error)
tobuildXDR(withMuxedAccounts bool) (xdr.Operation, error)
BuildXDR()
stays in a form before this PR. CallsbuildXDR(false)
internally.BuildXDRWithMuxedAccounts()
is added and callsbuildXDR(true)
internally.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.
@bartekn that's exactly what I implemented originally and I discarded after the design discussion. Please see 27a79c6#diff-0ef2e7d165d2f196939c937afadef91206823b0671f32120b265843fd291332aR15 and the issue body edit history (which originally presented the same design you suggested, symbol-naming aside).
We should be more cohesive when discussing designs (but that's for a retro discussion). The purpose of creating an early draft a week ago was exactly avoiding this type of situation.
I personally think this needs to go out (it's already late) but if @ire-and-curses thinks it's worth another rewrite, I will cave in and restore my original design.
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.
@ire-and-curses In order to get more context on what happened:
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.
Let's discuss in team meeting today. I really want to get this out.
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.
We decided offline to keep it as it is. Thanks for the suggestion though @bartekn