Switch RequestGovernanceObjectVotes from pointers to hashes #2189
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
…ernanceObjectVotes
Were used for shuffling, no longer needed
CryptoCentric
pushed a commit
to absolute-community/absolute
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 25, 2019
…2189) * No need for pointers to gobjects, can simply use hashes in RequestGovernanceObjectVotes * Drop `swap` and `=` in GovernanceObject Were used for shuffling, no longer needed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While searching for a bug now fixed in #2188, I noticed that we actually use these pointers only for getting hashes later. So here is an alternative (additional?) PR which replaces pointers to gobjects with their hashes and thus solves the same issue in a different way. This one however makes code a little bit less prone to errors imo and also removes some no longer used code (which is nice :)), so I would probably prefer this one over #2188.