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.

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

AddressMask: A distinct type for bitmasking addresses #202

Closed
dahlia opened this issue Apr 15, 2019 · 1 comment
Closed

AddressMask: A distinct type for bitmasking addresses #202

dahlia opened this issue Apr 15, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
suggestion Suggestion or feature request

Comments

@dahlia
Copy link
Contributor

dahlia commented Apr 15, 2019

Continued from the patch #197.

Problems:

  • Several interfaces store a bitmask of addresses into Address type. This leads to misunderstand these values are a valid address, which is not true.
  • Although the WildcardMask constant is defined, but it is placed in an inappropriate place: BlockSet<T>. It should be treated like AddressMask.Wildcard instead.
  • Matching algorithm is also placed in a random place. It should be abstracted out like IsPossiblyIn(this Address, AddressMask) or IsDefinitelyNotIn(this Address, AddressMask).
  • Adding an Address into a bitmask is also placed in a random place. It should be abstracted out like AddressMask.Add(Address).
@dahlia dahlia added the suggestion Suggestion or feature request label Apr 15, 2019
@dahlia
Copy link
Contributor Author

dahlia commented May 20, 2019

It is no more valid because we don't use address masking since #232.

@dahlia dahlia closed this as completed May 20, 2019
OnedgeLee pushed a commit to OnedgeLee/libplanet that referenced this issue Jan 31, 2023
…test-bucket

fix: Remove copy to test bucket funcs
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
suggestion Suggestion or feature request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant