-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.7k
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
fix(bank): fix unhandled error for vesting #13690
Merged
Merged
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0d7c57e
fix(bank): fix unhanlded error for vesting
fedekunze f5f8a40
fix conflicts
fedekunze 2926c1e
changelog
fedekunze d8f3d85
better error msg
fedekunze 48d622a
Merge branch 'main' into fedekunze/handle-locked-amt
alexanderbez 0a696b0
Apply suggestions from code review
fedekunze 3af9fd6
Merge branch 'main' into fedekunze/handle-locked-amt
julienrbrt 2d910ec
Merge branch 'main' into fedekunze/handle-locked-amt
atheeshp f944e06
tests: Add test to verify trying to send locked tokens raises an err…
MalteHerrmann 8314b0a
Merge branch 'main' into fedekunze/handle-locked-amt
julienrbrt f445888
Merge branch 'main' into fedekunze/handle-locked-amt
likhita-809 9a93321
re-add denom validation
julienrbrt e0dae11
Merge branch 'main' into fedekunze/handle-locked-amt
julienrbrt 3c075a9
Merge branch 'main' into fedekunze/handle-locked-amt
julienrbrt 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
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
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
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.
What benefit do we have to calling
AmountOfNoDenomValidation
here overAmountOf
? Since validation should occur prior as you pointed out,AmountOf
seems practical, no?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.
NewCoin
andAmountOf
validate the denom. Here we don't need to because we are already passing aCoins
type as an argument. By usingAmountOfNoDenomValidation
andsdk.Coin{}
we're saving two unnecessary denom validations just in this operationThere 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'm a bit against this. The idea is that these APIs exist for a reason, and unless explicitly not needed, e.g. denom validation is explicitly not required, then
New*
constructors should always be called. This also keeps consistency with the rest of the codebase and makes the PR diff smaller.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 tend to agree on this one, I really like consistency. Unless there's a noticeable performance difference I would go with
AmountOf
.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.
Shall we just push to this branch and fix it then?
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.
Yah!
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.
Reverted!