Skip to content
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

Add mynode.local as a block chain explorer option #3999

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

rbrooklyn
Copy link

@rbrooklyn rbrooklyn commented Feb 21, 2020

Add http://mynode.local:3002 as a URL for the user to select in the preferences for blockchain explorer to use.

This allows the user to use their own blockchain explorer running in a mynode installation on their own network. If not installation is present, then the link launched will not load, however, the user is unlikely to select this option without knowing what this is.

This is a trivial change.

Add http://mynode.local:3002 as a URL for the user to select in the preferences for blockchain explorer to use.

This allows the user to use their own blockchain explorer running in a mynode installation on their own network. If not installation is present, then the link launched will not load, however, the user is unlikely to select this option without knowing what this is.

This is a trivial change.
Copy link

@RiccardoMasutti RiccardoMasutti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK

@ripcurlx
Copy link
Contributor

@rbrooklyn Travis is detecting an abuse by your PR although it is probably absolut legit. We had this in the past already with one contributor. Back then someone else with a different account needed to cherry-pick the commits and create a PR themselves as there is no way to resolve this abuse warning manually.

@rbrooklyn
Copy link
Author

It's literally a one line change which I put in, which was a copy and paste from the line above it and changing a couple of strings. If that triggers some kind "abuse" detection then I'd say the abuse detection is broken, unless it's going by some kind of reputation scoring or something, as I probably don't have any on GitHub.

For what it's worth, this is the information I'm seeing. Seems to suggest that someone doing a "approving review" would push it through, although obviously I'm no expert:
image

It's up to you guys what you do with this. I wanted to contribute but I'm somewhat unwilling to keep putting effort in for a one line change. If this change is desired then it makes sense that someone with proper access to the repo do it rather than us wasting all this effort here.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 27, 2020

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the was:dropped label Mar 27, 2020
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Apr 3, 2020

This issue has been automatically closed because of inactivity. Feel free to reopen it if you think it is still relevant.

@stale stale bot closed this Apr 3, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants