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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
[NayNay] Signing bug for validators #63
[NayNay] Signing bug for validators #63
Changes from 2 commits
ad43e99
b729559
88d0282
fa291d2
71ee8b9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
🔥 this is a global variable. The way you're using it means that this function will try fixing once, then it will not be reset to 0 after this signing... so all future buggy signings will be skipped.
This function feels like it's way too fancy, and also not really named what it is. I *\think* all that we need is for the original code to be the same but like this:
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.
NOTE this code assumes
signWithAdaptersInOrder
DOES NOT MUTATE the input... that would need checking.We should not write functions which mutate inputs though 💀
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.
don't see any mutations, should be fine?
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.
We could do this way of catching the error, but we still need to keep track of the attempts made to signing and handle accordingly. I find the try..catch to be cleaner, thoughts?
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.
try
/catch
is the same aspromise.catch
🤷 (don't mind)You need to change this to not use it - either the way I suggested, or pass the attempts count as an argument