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.

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 defaultChainId as an option parameter #2823

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

alepc253
Copy link

@alepc253 alepc253 commented May 17, 2019

Description

This PR is a proposal for issue #2743.

Adds defaultChainId as an option parameter (undefined as default) that would be used in input validation and output formatting for addresses, considering changes included in PR #2727.

Type of change

  • New feature
  • Breaking change
  • Enhancement

Checklist:

  • I have selected the correct base branch.
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code.
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
  • My changes generate no warnings.
  • I have updated or added types for all modules I've changed
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules.
  • I ran npm run test in the root folder with success and extended the tests if necessary.
  • I ran npm run build in the root folder and tested it in the browser and with node.
  • I ran npm run dtslint in the root folder and tested that all my types are correct
  • I have tested my code on an ethereum test network.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 95.965% when pulling 283dde2 on alepc253:validators-and-formatters into dc63f75 on ethereum:1.0.

1 similar comment
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 95.965% when pulling 283dde2 on alepc253:validators-and-formatters into dc63f75 on ethereum:1.0.

@nivida nivida added Enhancement Includes improvements or optimizations In Progress Currently being worked on labels May 23, 2019
@nivida
Copy link
Contributor

nivida commented May 30, 2019

I would like to keep the internal address validation the same as before and we have implemented this standard already with the updated utility methods.

@nivida nivida closed this May 30, 2019
@alepc253
Copy link
Author

@nivida yes, the utility methods are implemented but if you pass a type address parameter checksummed with this standard to any of the web3 methods, it will be rejected for bad checksum.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Enhancement Includes improvements or optimizations In Progress Currently being worked on
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants