rename exclude_coin_* -> excluded_coin_* for consistency #15460
Merged
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
Quexington
added
the
Changed
Quexington
changed the title
Quexington
force-pushed
the
quex.rename_excluded_coin_amounts
branch
from
4ac1e0c
to
f7beefa
Compare
github-actions
bot
added
the
merge_conflict
trepca
suggested changes
Jun 9, 2023
github-actions
bot
removed
the
merge_conflict
trepca
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR does mostly what the title says, we had two names for the same concept. I chose the one that seemed to make the most sense in the code (often you will assign exclude_coin_amounts to a list that you will call excluded_coin_amounts). both were used in the RPCs so I left backwards compatibility in place by falling back to the previous key if the first one did not exist.