Skip to content

fix: return after calling failed #7423

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
alejandrogarcia83 merged 1 commit into from
Apr 27, 2025
Merged

fix: return after calling failed #7423

alejandrogarcia83 merged 1 commit into from
Apr 27, 2025

Conversation

@thecockatiel
Copy link
Contributor

@thecockatiel thecockatiel commented Mar 19, 2025

adds return after a few failed() calls, like the rest of tasks

HenrikJannsen
HenrikJannsen approved these changes Apr 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@HenrikJannsen HenrikJannsen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utACK

@alejandrogarcia83 alejandrogarcia83 merged commit af84eb4 into bisq-network:master Apr 27, 2025
3 checks passed
@alejandrogarcia83 alejandrogarcia83 added this to the v1.9.20 milestone Apr 27, 2025
@thecockatiel thecockatiel deleted the return_after_failed branch April 28, 2025 07:47
alvasw added a commit to alvasw/bisq that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2025
@alvasw
MakerProcessesInputsForDepositTxRequest: Merge all error catching cases
b8b5b93 
We have `failed(...)` methods for `String`s and `Throwable`s. The
`failed(Throwable t)` extracts the `Throwable`'s message and appends it
to the `errorMessage`. Therefore, both catch clauses are identical. We
can remove the other catch clause because the most outer catch clause is
identical to the inner one.

Relates to bisq-network#7423
@alvasw alvasw mentioned this pull request Apr 29, 2025
Merged
@alvasw
Copy link
Contributor

alvasw commented Apr 29, 2025

utACK - I opened a new PR (#7445) applying the code review suggestions.

Review notes:

  • MakerProcessesInputsForDepositTxRequest
    • failed(...) accepts string and throwable
      • What's difference?
        • String callsappendToErrorMessage
          • appends to priorerrorMessagenewline andmessage
        • Throwable callsappendExceptionToErrorMessage
          • prints stacktrace
          • if exception has message it prints message otherwise exception.toString()
        • So both are same -> Can collapse!
      • Can collapse both catch branches? -> yes
        • If yes then merge with outer catch branch? -> yes
        • Open follow PR
  • TakerVerifyAndSignContract
    • utACK - Looks good!

@thecockatiel thecockatiel mentioned this pull request May 18, 2025
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@HenrikJannsen HenrikJannsen HenrikJannsen approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

v1.9.20

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@thecockatiel @alvasw @HenrikJannsen @alejandrogarcia83