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.

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

docs: helpful comments on a few proto types #2775

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2023
Merged

docs: helpful comments on a few proto types #2775

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2023

Conversation

conorsch
Copy link
Contributor

Adds a few explanatory comments to the protobuf message types:

  1. Attempts to describe the expected shape of Address.
  2. Explains the lo/hi denom representation of a uint128.
  3. Explicitly mentions return type of stream where appropriate.

Refs #2768. Closes #2734.

@conorsch
docs: helpful comments on a few proto types
2ccd76e 
Adds a few explanatory comments to the protobuf message types:

  1. Attempts to describe the expected shape of Address.
  2. Explains the lo/hi denom representation of a uint128.
  3. Explicitly mentions return type of `stream` where appropriate.

Refs #2768. Closes #2734.
@conorsch conorsch temporarily deployed to smoke-test June 30, 2023 23:07 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
@hdevalence hdevalence merged commit 3b74fd4 into main Jul 1, 2023
@hdevalence hdevalence deleted the proto-comments-round-1 branch July 1, 2023 00:10
@cratelyn cratelyn added the protobuf-changes Makes changes to the protobuf definitions. label Mar 5, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
protobuf-changes Makes changes to the protobuf definitions.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RPC methods don't consistently declare stream response types
3 participants
@conorsch @hdevalence @cratelyn