refactor: simplify blockexplorer link #638
Open
Conversation
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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
michael1011
force-pushed
the
refactor-blockexplorerlink
branch
from
e6d39fc
to
bb85824
Compare
michael1011
requested changes
Jul 15, 2024
dni
force-pushed
the
refactor-blockexplorerlink
branch
from
bb85824
to
3260e30
Compare
dni
force-pushed
the
refactor-blockexplorerlink
branch
from
3d69338
to
4b40554
Compare
done |
kilrau
approved these changes
Jul 23, 2024
michael1011
requested changes
Jul 24, 2024
Comment on lines
+63
to
+71
| <BlockExplorer | ||
| asset={ | ||
| swap().claimTx ? swap().assetReceive : swap().assetSend | ||
| } | ||
| txId={swap().claimTx || swap().lockupTx} | ||
| address={ | ||
| swap().claimAddress || (swap() as SubmarineSwap).address | ||
| } | ||
| /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes no sense either. Why would we ever want to show assetReceive after we broadcasted a claim?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my thinking was, when doing a reverse or chainswap and i successfully receive lbtc i want to open that claimTx on the success page
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nevermind, I meant assetSend. Showing the send one makes no sense
src/status/TransactionMempool.tsx
Outdated
Comment on lines
14
to
18
| <BlockExplorer | ||
| asset={swap().assetSend} | ||
| txId={swapStatusTransaction()?.id} | ||
| typeLabel="lockup_tx" | ||
| /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we showing this in transaction.mempool but not for transaction.confirmed or invoice.pending?
dni
force-pushed
the
refactor-blockexplorerlink
branch
from
0c3faee
to
bbfe6d5
Compare
dni
force-pushed
the
refactor-blockexplorerlink
branch
from
bbfe6d5
to
c135555
Compare
working on integration a blockexplorer setting i found it very difficult to understand the BlockExplorerLink component, i would suggest of removing the general one on the `Pay` page and put it explicitly into each relevant swap status page. this removed the needs of the `BlockExplorerLink` component it can be tested for each status page
dni
force-pushed
the
refactor-blockexplorerlink
branch
from
c135555
to
d2e13d1
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
working on integration a blockexplorer setting i found it very difficult to understand the BlockExplorerLink component, i would suggest of removing the general one on the
Paypage and put it explicitly into each relevant swap status page. this removed the needs of theBlockExplorerLinkcomponentit can be tested for each status page