Receipts for deployments with COAs have both contractAddress and to fields present
#535
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
m-Peter
changed the title
contractAddress and to fields presentcontractAddress and to fields present
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (1)
tests/web3js/eth_non_interactive_test.js (1)
65-75: Enhanced test case for transaction receipt validation.The added assertions in the
get blocktest case correctly validate the transaction receipt based on the transaction context. This enhancement ensures that the receipt fields are accurately checked for both contract deployments and standard transactions.Consider adding more detailed comments in the test to explain the rationale behind these assertions, which will improve the maintainability and readability of the test code.
| // for contract deployments, `to` should always be `nil` | ||
| if dc.SubType == types.DeployCallSubType { | ||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct implementation for contract deployments.
The added logic in the To() method correctly handles contract deployments by setting the to address to nil when the SubType is DeployCallSubType. This change ensures compliance with the JSON-RPC API specifications for transaction receipts.
Consider adding a unit test to verify that the to field is set to nil for deployment transactions. Would you like me to help with this?
Description
When the
contractAddressfield is present, thetofield should be absent, as per the JSON-RPC API specification for transaction receipts.For contributor use:
masterbranchFiles changedin the Github PR explorerSummary by CodeRabbit
New Features
toaddress is set tonilfor contract creation.Bug Fixes