fix: rework billing extrinsic to take in index #651
Conversation
DylanVerstraete
force-pushed
the
development
branch
from
3f19cca
to
e3868e9
Compare
DylanVerstraete
requested review from
brandonpille,
renauter,
robvanmieghem and
LeeSmet
as code owners
| @@ -970,7 +971,8 @@ impl<T: Config> Pallet<T> { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| Self::_update_contract_state(&mut contract, &types::ContractState::Deleted(cause))?; | |||
| Self::bill_contract(contract.contract_id)?; | |||
| let index = Self::get_current_billing_loop_index(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is the only thing that "annoys" me...
because passing no matter what index here will continue to work fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean? In case the index doens't exist?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess what Erwan is saying is that when you pass a wrong index but a correct contractID, the contract will be billed normally but not cleaned up if the index passed is wrong.
It's a side-effect of having the code structured like this.
| @@ -970,7 +971,8 @@ impl<T: Config> Pallet<T> { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| Self::_update_contract_state(&mut contract, &types::ContractState::Deleted(cause))?; | |||
| Self::bill_contract(contract.contract_id)?; | |||
| let index = Self::get_current_billing_loop_index(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean? In case the index doens't exist?
|
@renauter I agree with the confusion this is actually adding. Can we maybe think of another more elegant solution? |
@DylanVerstraete it is better now? |
|
Good, let's merge and test on devnet |
No description provided.