TS-81 Address.isValidAddress methods #330
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rg911
suggested changes
Oct 30, 2019
rg911
previously approved these changes
Oct 30, 2019
rg911
approved these changes
Oct 30, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @rg911
I've revisited the is valid address methods. The solution is that RawAddress class handles the low-level byte array validation doing the hashes and checksum checks. The Address class handles the high-level validation, with 2 methods isValidPlainAddress and isValidEncodedAddress that receive strings. The address delegates the validation to RawAddress. I've also added Address.encoded() so you can get the hex string version of the address.
Have a look at let me know what do you think.