Update block schema - Closes #6739 #6765
Conversation
shuse2
force-pushed
the
6739-update_block_schema
branch
from
10d1076 to
89589fc
Compare
| if (typeof header !== 'object') { | ||
| throw new Error('Invalid block format. header must be an object.'); | ||
| } | ||
| if (!Array.isArray(payload)) { | ||
| throw new Error('Invalid block format. payload must be an array.'); | ||
| } | ||
| if (!Array.isArray(assets)) { | ||
| throw new Error('Invalid block format. assets must be an array.'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| throw new Error('Invalid block format. assets must be an array.'); | |
| throw new Error('Invalid block format. assets must be an array.'); |
| throw new Error('Invalid block format. assets must be an array.'); | |
| throw new Error('Invalid block format. "assets" must be an array.'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is following the style of other error message?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I saw further below the property name was in double quotes but I'm ok with either way.
…update_block_schema
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export const blockAssetSchema = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this would be more appropriate if we follow the naming conventions in the LIP.
The LIP defines new block property assets, and since we have blockHeaderSchema for the property header, hence blockAssetsSchema would be inline.
| export const blockAssetSchema = { | |
| export const blockAssetsSchema = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
asset is not part of the block header, and we need to decode asset one by one. Notice block schema has byte array for assets
| public constructor( | ||
| public readonly header: BlockHeader, | ||
| public readonly payload: Transaction[], | ||
| public readonly assets: BlockAssets, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A bit unsure here if it can be redefined to be something like BlockAsset[]. In the LIP it says assets is an array of objects and also since payload is an array of objects too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
other properties are also class instance, and we could create BlockAsset class, but we want to have blockAssets.get and blockAssets.set. Therefore it's better to be BlockAssets class
What was the problem?
This PR resolves #6739
How was it solved?
How was it tested?