-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 267
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
Send a legacy PegIn transaction from a Multisig address #2901
Open
julianlen
wants to merge
7
commits into
pegin-it-registerBtcTx-negativeHeight
Choose a base branch
from
pegin-it-differentSenders
base: pegin-it-registerBtcTx-negativeHeight
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c9394d9
feat: testing that a legacy register btc transaction with multisig se…
julianlen 3db83d6
fix: changed bitcoinTransaction for btcTransaction, fixed some minor …
julianlen 51acc94
fix: removed the setupChainWithBtcTransaction method and created loca…
julianlen c45bf33
fix: moved to final variables those that dont suffer modifications
julianlen 4c880cd
fix: added Arrange and Act to registerBtcTransaction_forALegacyBtcTra…
julianlen 1c1e721
fix: added an extra space to add clarity
julianlen 500be3f
fix: erased unused Exception clause
julianlen 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
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.
Maybe we can do the findFirst or size strategy for both of them. For consistency.
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.
Not sure what you mean, I use both approaches to say: that it's the only one and it's exactly the one I am expecting
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.
I see, the size assertion indirectly ensures that there is exactly one pegout entry, making the second assertion somewhat redundant. Not a big deal, but you can simplify the code to have a single assert while maintaining clarity.
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.
Okay, I always wonder whether asserting an isPresent with an optional makes sense. The list of PegoutsWaitingForConfirmations.Entry may have a list of empty optionals
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.
Since you have checked that it has a size 1 it is guaranteed that the Optional is present.
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.
List.of(Optional.empty()).size() is equal to 1, that's why I check both