This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 11, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 455
Add from/to timestamp filter to get blocks endpoint - Closes #2391 #2472
Merged
shuse2
merged 8 commits into
development
from
2391-add_fromTo_timestamp_filter_get_blocks
Oct 18, 2018
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ad7da24
Add filters from/to timestamp to get blocks endpoint
diego-G 274ff65
Add tests for new from/to timestamp filters in get blocks endpoint
diego-G 3796fef
Correct operator when filtering blocks by timestamps
diego-G 60bd5bc
Change some tests' description to make them more readable
diego-G 89c7751
Merge branch 'development' into 2391-add_fromTo_timestamp_filter_get_…
MaciejBaj cc96fc1
Merge branch 'development' into 2391-add_fromTo_timestamp_filter_get_…
MaciejBaj 9d8074b
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/development' into 2391-add_fromT…
4miners 4d6d80d
Merge branch 'development' into 2391-add_fromTo_timestamp_filter_get_…
shuse2 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
In swagger we say
0
is the valid value. Should not we simplify it on API level to disallow zero as param value?https://github.com/LiskHQ/lisk/blob/5acfc7bdd902965124263d448be124edf481b6ae/schema/swagger.yml#L1169-L1174
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.
The idea is to keep
0
as an allowed value. However, there was a mistake in the control oftoTimestamp
that I've caught thanks to this comment. @nazarhussain could you check it again? I hope now it's easier to understand.