-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
feat: imports hardforks preset accounts #805
Conversation
12b87bb
to
ffeab9b
Compare
README notes to be added... |
""" | ||
@spec import_account_presets() :: :ok | ||
def import_account_presets do | ||
case Database.next_key(Model.KindIntTransferTx, {"accounts_lima", {-1, -1}, <<>>, -1}) do |
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.
Can we turn this entirely into a mutation? That way we continue encapsulating Database calls through the State
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 Database
is used because the goal is to check if the data is already persisted.
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 understand that's what it does. I was suggesting changing how it does it. It's optional anyway, feel free to merge it
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 am talking about how not to encapsulate things to make the purpose clearer.
4c1b96e
to
ba97eef
Compare
ba97eef
to
b6effb0
Compare
Refs #347