Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2020. It is now read-only.

Give accounts precedence over address_book entries #3732

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 8, 2016
Merged

Give accounts precedence over address_book entries #3732

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
21a3cf7
Swap order of addressbook & acocunts merge
jacogr Dec 7, 2016
f758610
Ignore meta.deleted for accounts
jacogr Dec 7, 2016
5bdb6e4
Ignore meta.deleted for account name display
jacogr Dec 7, 2016
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion js/src/redux/providers/personalActions.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ export function personalAccountsInfo (accountsInfo) {

Object.keys(accountsInfo || {})
.map((address) => Object.assign({}, accountsInfo[address], { address }))
.filter((account) => !account.meta.deleted)
.filter((account) => account.uuid || !account.meta.deleted)
.forEach((account) => {
if (account.uuid) {
accounts[account.address] = account;
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion js/src/ui/IdentityName/identityName.js
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ class IdentityName extends Component {
render () {
const { address, accountsInfo, tokens, empty, name, shorten, unknown, className } = this.props;
const account = accountsInfo[address] || tokens[address];
const hasAccount = account && (!account.meta || !account.meta.deleted);
const hasAccount = account && (account.uuid || !account.meta || !account.meta.deleted);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think isAccount would be more intuitive here.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hasAccount is perfectly acceptable (as it is in the current codebase) since it indicates that the account is in the acocuntsInfo list.

Wontfix.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jacogr jacogr Dec 7, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In addition https://github.com/ethcore/parity/pull/3739 removes the line (in this specific file as well as all the others that has the same hasAccount check & naming completely)


if (!hasAccount && empty) {
return null;
Expand Down
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion rpc/src/v1/impls/parity_accounts.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ impl<C: 'static> ParityAccounts for ParityAccountsClient<C> where C: MiningBlock
let info = try!(store.accounts_info().map_err(|e| errors::account("Could not fetch account info.", e)));
let other = store.addresses_info().expect("addresses_info always returns Ok; qed");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

unrelated but this proof seems a bit strange


Ok(info.into_iter().chain(other.into_iter()).map(|(a, v)| {
Ok(other.into_iter().chain(info.into_iter()).map(|(a, v)| {
let m = map![
"name".to_owned() => to_value(&v.name),
"meta".to_owned() => to_value(&v.meta),
Expand Down