-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Add UT Neo.Extensions #3467
Add UT Neo.Extensions #3467
Conversation
@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ public static BigInteger Mod(this BigInteger x, BigInteger y) | |||
|
|||
public static BigInteger ModInverse(this BigInteger a, BigInteger n) | |||
{ |
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.
Is this used inside the vm?
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.
It shouldn't, VM uses its own implementation of ModInverse for OpCode.MODPOW
handling.
But this method is used for operations with ECPoint
(division and addition), thus I'd check if native CryptoLib's contract operations are not affected.
i am adding more edge testes in this pr, please hold a while |
Good tests, @chenzhitong, they are important for BigInteger use cases |
No description provided.