Substitution of UTXO transaction ID in the template #4
Conversation
|
|
||
| let post_actions = self.check_deposit_msg(deposit_msg, mint_amount); | ||
| let post_actions = | ||
| self.check_deposit_msg(deposit_msg, mint_amount, pending_utxo_info.tx_id.clone()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you sure that the tx_id is unique?
As I see it is possible to verify_deposit with different vout for same transaction
| let mut total_gas = 0; | ||
| let mut total_amount = 0; | ||
| for (index, post_action) in post_actions.iter().enumerate() { | ||
| for (index, post_action) in post_actions.iter_mut().enumerate() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| for (index, post_action) in post_actions.iter_mut().enumerate() { | |
| for (index, post_action) in post_actions.iter_mut().enumerate() { | |
| post_action.msg = post_action.msg.replace("{{UTXO_TX_ID}}", utxo_storage_key); |
I think the changes can be done with less code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In general, we can do it this way, it’s really the simplest option. In that case, the replacement will always happen regardless of what is specified in the templates.
I also thought about adding a special template like 'add UTXO', and if such a template exists, then perform the replacement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think about something like that:
3145bfa
I’d like to isolate the contracts to which the changes are applied.
In this option, the code is simpler. However, the logic becomes stranger. Templates stop being templates and turn into modifiers.
The first option sounds more logical in the context of templates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also thought that it is important to add additional restrictions, but after thinking more on it, I think we can make things simple and just do replace.
There is a low chance to get collision with this naming.
No description provided.