Contract data #3439
Contract data #3439
Conversation
graydon
force-pushed
the
contract-data
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7a974e5 to
d26901d
Compare
graydon
force-pushed
the
contract-data
branch
2 times, most recently
from
78fcbd3 to
098369c
Compare
graydon
force-pushed
the
contract-data
branch
2 times, most recently
from
270551f to
d2be27e
Compare
graydon
force-pushed
the
contract-data
branch
2 times, most recently
from
892ae2f to
e1160f2
Compare
graydon
force-pushed
the
contract-data
branch
5 times, most recently
from
9022dcc to
b2e8e17
Compare
graydon
force-pushed
the
contract-data
branch
3 times, most recently
from
cb6fc79 to
807a3cf
Compare
| return true; | ||
| #endif |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
which code path ends up calling this for Jump Cannon?
graydon
force-pushed
the
contract-data
branch
3 times, most recently
from
dde6a17 to
81ce755
Compare
|
I believe I've now addressed all review comments and have updated the graydon/rs-stellar-xdr/contract-data and stellar/rs-stellar-contract-env/contract-data branches that depend on this (and that this depends on cyclically). @jonjove @jayz22 @leighmcculloch @MonsieurNicolas could you please mark comments as resolved that have been resolved? (and if there's nothing else really critical, can someone r+?) |
| return true; | ||
| #endif |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's actually more conservative to do what we do for LIQUIDITY_POOL here (and throw): we should not have any dependency on "SponsorshipUtils" from Jump Cannon.
|
I don't have the permission to resolve comments, but feel free to resolve them yourself. They are minor and you've clarified them both. |
src/test/TestUtils.cpp
Outdated
| @@ -114,6 +115,10 @@ computeMultiplier(LedgerEntry const& le) | |||
| case OFFER: | |||
| case DATA: | |||
| return 1; | |||
| #ifdef ENABLE_NEXT_PROTOCOL_VERSION_UNSAFE_FOR_PRODUCTION | |||
| case CONTRACT_DATA: | |||
| return 1; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given that @MonsieurNicolas wants to have no dependency between jump cannon and sponsorships, should we throw on this case as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@graydon think you missed this one.
|
Pushed update containing all review comments from @jonjove and @MonsieurNicolas today. |
|
r+ f013c99 |
This is a consolidated branch including changes for CAP-0047 and 0053 (covering CONFIG_SETTING and CONTRACT_DATA ledger entries, and all support code).