refactor!: don't require owned AccountId for RPC abstractions #52
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
ChaoticTempest
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM: it was originally requiring owned AccountId because the client mostly required it, but after a lot of changes it wasn't really needed to be owned anymore. Thanks for cleaning this up! Also the create TLA doesn't need to be owned either. All these types can be cheaply cloned either ways
Merged
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There doesn't seem to me to be any requirement for these to be owned, given that they are just used to be serialized when sending a request. This is all very opinionated and I also have to think through the implications and future direction a lot more, but curious what you think @ChaoticTempest
There were also some that could be changed with creating TLA (but this one seemed like owned might have a reason). Also, there are other parameters this could be done with, but trying to limit the scope.