Allow converting between nil big.Int and nil uint256.Int #137
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
holiman
reviewed
Mar 31, 2023
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #137 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 5 5
Lines 1615 1621 +6
=========================================
+ Hits 1615 1621 +6 |
holiman
requested changes
Mar 31, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is perhaps a debatable change, but may be more logical than originally anticipated.
In some places, having a
nilas abig.Intoruint256.Intmight make sense (e.g. an optional and non-initialized field). In those cases, converting between the two across older/newer code might be necessary. In it's current incarnation, the uint256 library will crash, so all optional nils need to be special cased.IMHO this should not be necessary. If a uint256 should not be nil, but a nil big int is passed, then I assume the code later will crash anyway on some uint256 accessor method whether we crash at the conversion or not, so it's not like we're silently swallowing up errors. On the other hand, allowing the nils to be converted back and forth reduces the error potential of forgetting to special case an optional nil somewhere and blowing up runtime.