-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
Transient Storage Field Example #187
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
Transient Storage Field Example #187
Conversation
…age accesses on it
johspaeth
left a comment
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.
LGTM.
| # TransientStorage Example with transient field syntax | ||
|
|
||
| ## Overview | ||
| This folder contains a smart contract named `TransientTest` that implements a simple lock via a transient boolean field. The spec file demonstrate how we can use the `Tstore` and `Tload` hooks to hook on accesses to such fields, and shows also that we can use direct storage access from CVL on them as well. |
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 folder contains a smart contract named `TransientTest` that implements a simple lock via a transient boolean field. The spec file demonstrate how we can use the `Tstore` and `Tload` hooks to hook on accesses to such fields, and shows also that we can use direct storage access from CVL on them as well. | |
| This folder contains a smart contract named `TransientTest` that implements a simple lock via a transient boolean field. The spec file demonstrates how we can use the `Tstore` and `Tload` hooks to hook on accesses to such fields, and shows also that we can use direct storage access from CVL on them as well. |
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's not direct storage access on the hooks, it's on the fields. Would "on the fields" be clearer? The "them" was meant to refer back to the "such fields".
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.
Lol, of course.
I wanted to clarify what 'them' refers to and remove the ambiguity, clearly failed here by proving the point that it was ambiguous.
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 guess it makes a strong case for some change :D
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.
there we go
Co-authored-by: Johannes Späth <johspaeth@users.noreply.github.com>
add a simple example with a transient field and hooks and direct storage accesses on it