-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
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
fix: Remove auth flag #3039
fix: Remove auth flag #3039
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 7883949999Details
💛 - Coveralls |
yield put(loginRequest(providerType)) | ||
} | ||
|
||
yield put(clearAssetPacks()) |
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.
should we keep this clearAssetPacks
?
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.
nice catch 😱
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 auth dapp flow returned before doing so, but it might have been a bug from before
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.
you're right! with the new auth dapp flow, this is no longer required because when the user is redirected again to the builder, the state is cleared
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.
But the user might change account via the wallet, which event will end up calling the saga. If the changed wallet already has an identity, it should clear the assetpacks and whatever it did before.
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.
good catch! this is the way 👍
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ export function locateNextLand(landTiles: Record<string, LandTile>, currentLandI | |||
const nextIndex = (((index + 1) % landIds.length) + landIds.length) % landIds.length | |||
|
|||
const nextLandId = landIds[nextIndex] | |||
return landTiles[nextLandId]!.land | |||
return landTiles[nextLandId].land |
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.
could landTiles[nextLandId]
be undefined?
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'm not sure, but the result would be the same with or without the !
.
This change was required by the linter.
f8487cb
to
f929039
Compare
No description provided.