refactor: use deploy account transaction extension trait #40
+59
−15
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @ArniStarkware and the rest of your teammates on |
ArniStarkware
force-pushed
the
arni/refactor/account_tx_impl/deploy_account
branch
from
3a76336 to
5f2855e
Compare
|
Collides with #38. To be determined which one is preferable. |
9 tasks
|
Replaced with #38. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Pull Request type
Please check the type of change your PR introduces:
What is the current behavior?
There is code duplication between SNAPI
InternalDeployAccountTransactionand blockifierDeployAccountTransaction.The struct
DeployAccountTransactionhas additional functionality.What is the new behavior?
DeployAccountTransactionis replaced with a type by the same name, which points to the SNAPI struct.Does this introduce a breaking change?
Other information
This change is