Skip to content

feat(dpp): all changes from v24-wasm-integration - #905

Closed
antouhou wants to merge 13 commits into
v0.24-devfrom
feat-v24-rs-dpp
Closed

feat(dpp): all changes from v24-wasm-integration#905
antouhou wants to merge 13 commits into
v0.24-devfrom
feat-v24-rs-dpp

Conversation

@antouhou

@antouhouantouhou commented Apr 10, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

js components not functioning properly

What was done?

Lots of things

How Has This Been Tested?

Run tests, run test suite from another branch

Breaking Changes

Some, probably

Checklist:

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation

For repository code-owners and collaborators only

  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

@antouhou
antouhou marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2023 14:20
@antouhou
antouhou requested a review from shumkov as a code ownerApril 10, 2023 14:20
@antouhouantouhou changed the title feat: all changes from v24-wasm-integrationfeat(dpp): all changes from v24-wasm-integrationApr 10, 2023
// we want to skip serialization of transitions, as we does it manually in `to_object()` and `to_json()`
#[serde(skip_serializing)]
// we want to skip serialization of transitions, as we do it manually in `to_object()` and `to_json()`
// #[serde(skip_serializing)]

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just comment?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure what to do about this one - this one was done for a reason, but it broke stuff. So while we're not 100% sure (it seems like it doesn't) it doesn't break anything I would keep it here

@shumkovshumkovApr 11, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's bring it back then? My point was that we shouldn't commit commented code.

.is_in_the_valid_master_nodes_list(context.owner_id.to_buffer())
.await?;

// // Do not allow creating document if ownerId is not in SML

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should add a todo here

@shumkov

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@antouhou what we are going to do with this PR?

@antouhou

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Closing, as it has been split into several smaller PRs

@shumkov

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

It was merge with multiple separate PRs

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@antouhou@shumkov