-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Test utils #106
Test utils #106
Conversation
…ate accuse tests to use new utilities, begin new embalmer specs
revert LibErrors.NewResurrectionTimeInPast(resurrectionTime); | ||
} | ||
|
||
// Confirm that new resurrection time doesn't exceed sarcophagus's maximumRewrapInterval | ||
if (resurrectionTime > block.timestamp + sarcophagus.maximumRewrapInterval) { | ||
if (block.timestamp + sarcophagus.maximumRewrapInterval < resurrectionTime) { |
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.
Is there a reason you seem to be making sure block.timestamp
appears earlier in these expressions? Some efficiency/edgecase shenanigans maybe? Or just a style choice?
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.
it is just a style thing haha I was running through all the code trying to evaluate it for readability and I personally think it's easier to follow if block timestamp is consistently the first thing in the checks
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct AppStorage { | |||
mapping(bytes32 => address) doubleHashedShardArchaeologists; | |||
|
|||
// sarcophagus ids | |||
// todo: is this used? |
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 highly doubt it. Seth and Kyle may have more context on if there was some future plans for having this
No description provided.