-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 73
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added RawPlutusData to PlutusData primitive types #363
Added RawPlutusData to PlutusData primitive types #363
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #363 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 83.98% 83.98%
=======================================
Files 29 29
Lines 3733 3733
Branches 941 941
=======================================
Hits 3135 3135
Misses 433 433
Partials 165 165 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Thanks for the change. Could you add a unit test (also as an example) where |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for adding the test!
It is (and was) actually possible to use |
@nielstron The issue is that parsing did a hard check on types. You could pass in |
I am not talking about |
To my knowledge, there is no Even if there were a Line 560 in 3d65c67
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. |
Some contracts are starting to include forward datums, where a field could contain an arbitrary datum that will be passed on to a subsequent address.
This requires the ability to support arbitrary plutusdata.
In Python <= 3.10, it was possible to pass in
typing.Any
to a field, but starting inPython 3.11
and beyond, it is no longer possible.This PR adds
RawPlutusData
to the list of available of PlutusData primitives that can be used for a field.