-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 493
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
tx_field tables #2849
tx_field tables #2849
Conversation
a5ef5a4
to
04c6b6f
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2849 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 47.28% 47.33% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 351 351
Lines 56488 56506 +18
==========================================
+ Hits 26708 26745 +37
+ Misses 26765 26752 -13
+ Partials 3015 3009 -6
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Ops have a 'cost' of 1 unless otherwise specified. | |||
- SHA256 hash of value X, yields [32]byte | |||
- **Cost**: | |||
- 7 (LogicSigVersion = 1) | |||
- 35 (2 <= LogicSigVersion <= 5) | |||
- 35 (LogicSigVersion => 2) |
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.
>=
would be more conventional, and less confused with an arrow?
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.
oh, geez, you're right of course. thanks.
Drive the checking of whether tx_field can set a particular field in a table-driven way, rather than by simple switch. This is cleaner as we add functionality in later versions, and will allow generating the spec for tx_field.