Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Smart Contracts: InvalidRecipientsExecution now contains the reason #1343

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Apr 17, 2024
Merged

Smart Contracts: InvalidRecipientsExecution now contains the reason #1343

merged 11 commits into from
Apr 17, 2024

Conversation

bchamagne
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This way, if a transaction is refused because a smart contract would have failed, the reason is propagated to the user.

Type of change

  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

How Has This Been Tested?

Tested with 3 nodes

Checklist:

  • My code follows the style guidelines of this project
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

@bchamagne bchamagne added feature New feature request smart contracts Involve smart contracts mining Involve transaction validation and mining labels Dec 7, 2023
@bchamagne bchamagne added this to the 1.5.0 milestone Dec 7, 2023
@bchamagne bchamagne force-pushed the sc-invalid-recipient branch from 4a568c3 to 977f7a4 Compare December 13, 2023 13:43
@bchamagne bchamagne force-pushed the sc-invalid-recipient branch from 51b3fcd to 4f4cb50 Compare January 30, 2024 17:37
@bchamagne bchamagne removed this from the 1.5.0 milestone Mar 20, 2024
@Neylix Neylix added this to the 1.5.1 milestone Mar 29, 2024
@Neylix Neylix force-pushed the sc-invalid-recipient branch from 4f4cb50 to 728aeaf Compare April 4, 2024 12:10
@Neylix Neylix changed the base branch from sc-cond-block to develop April 4, 2024 12:11
@Neylix Neylix force-pushed the sc-invalid-recipient branch from 728aeaf to 6eec840 Compare April 5, 2024 14:53
@bchamagne
Copy link
Contributor Author

LGTM

@bchamagne bchamagne mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2024
Merged
@Neylix Neylix force-pushed the sc-invalid-recipient branch from 9c1a9c5 to 3fd7f71 Compare April 17, 2024 10:56
@Neylix Neylix force-pushed the sc-invalid-recipient branch from 3fd7f71 to 2997128 Compare April 17, 2024 10:58
@Neylix Neylix merged commit 405947b into develop Apr 17, 2024
1 check failed
@Neylix Neylix deleted the sc-invalid-recipient branch April 17, 2024 10:58
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@samuelmanzanera samuelmanzanera samuelmanzanera left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
feature New feature request mining Involve transaction validation and mining smart contracts Involve smart contracts
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.5.1
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@bchamagne @samuelmanzanera @Neylix