Remove unexpected block unwrapping #3455
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
marun
approved these changes
Oct 9, 2024
ARR4N
reviewed
Oct 10, 2024
ARR4N
approved these changes
Oct 11, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Why this should be merged
Currently we actually pass
ApricotProposalBlockandApricotStandardBlocks intostate.AddStatelessBlockupon accept. This ends up not being a bug because theBanff.*Blocks serialized format is still returned from.Bytes()and the parsed version of the block is not cached.However, this is a very weird flow that seems very close to causing a bug.
How this works
Passes the wrapped block types into the helper functions.
How this was tested