-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
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
Added hardfork to RpcClient #825
Added hardfork to RpcClient #825
Conversation
"initialgasdistribution": 0, | ||
"hardforks": [ | ||
{ | ||
"name": "HF_Aspidochelone", |
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.
BTW, speaking of #822, can we avoid HF_
prefixes here? It's hardforks
section already.
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 it based off Enum Hardfork
, So its parses the name, i guess i could put value, i believe that works.
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.
oh i see what your saying, Thats how its used in #823.
public enum Hardfork : byte
{
HF_Aspidochelone,
HF_Basilisk
}
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.
Yeah, it's not a client problem and not something client should be bothered with. It's just that I've only noticed it here. But server-side it'd probably be a bit better.
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.
forkJson["name"] = hf.Key; |
Code uses key of the enum which in our case is HF_Aspidochelone
and HF_Basilisk
. We would have to change the server to use the value instead. If you would like me to proceed in changing the server let me know.
Edit: I feel that you think the server didn't implement this. but it did, thats why im doing this. Yes i do think they merged it too fast #823.
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.
Yeah, it's not a client problem and not something client should be bothered with. It's just that I've only noticed it here. But server-side it'd probably be a bit better.
Why we need it in server? We can remove it from both
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.
remember this #823 someone merged it. To late in 3.6.1
Good to go? ifs its already in the server. |
Added hardfork to RpcClient and tested
This is for #823 implementation of hardfork settings in
getversion
rpc method.