-
Rather than using a transaction function to take an action, can I use one like so...
Right now this fails to commit every time. The EDIT: I may also be misunderstanding these in general. The following always ends with a false value.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 4 comments 2 replies
-
Hi @Vaelatern - I believe everything works as expected if you change We could probably adapt the default logging to make transaction function errors more transparent during development - sorry it wasn't easier for you to spot this one! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Alright, that solves the bottom case where I was misunderstanding, but unfortunately does not explain whether I can do nothing in a tx-fn and still end up OK. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Ah yes, it always helps to read the actual question before hitting reply... You should be able to return It might be possible that the use of current-namespaced keyword |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
So returning false works, can I return true as a noop? Testing suggests I can get what I want if I return |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
So returning false works, can I return true as a noop?
Testing suggests I can get what I want if I return
[]
on successfully matching the invariant, andfalse
on failure.