Conversation
palas
requested review from
Jimbo4350,
carbolymer and
newhoggy
as code owners
palas
force-pushed
the
1149-remove-requirement-of-current-treasury-withdrawal-for-transaction-in-build-raw-command
branch
from
ca753ee to
24d7d28
Compare
cardano-cli/test/cardano-cli-golden/Test/Golden/Conway/Transaction/BuildRaw.hs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
palas
force-pushed
the
1149-remove-requirement-of-current-treasury-withdrawal-for-transaction-in-build-raw-command
branch
from
d3f1e86 to
edcde6f
Compare
| asum | ||
| [ Opt.flag' IncludeCurrentTreasuryValue $ | ||
| mconcat | ||
| [ Opt.long "include-current-treasury-value" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why deviate from the name that build-raw uses?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason I used a different name for the flag is that this one obtains the value from the node, while build-raw takes it from the command line (so it expects a value after the flag). But I don't have a strong opinion about it
|
|
||
| -- | Whether to include the current treasury value in the transaction body. | ||
| -- If included, the current treasury value will be obtained from the node. | ||
| data IncludeCurrentTreasuryValue = IncludeCurrentTreasuryValue | ExcludeCurrentTreasuryValue |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are you introducing this sum type? It's not necessary. What is wrong with (Maybe TxCurrentTreasuryValue)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is different because that command takes the value from the node, not from the command line, so it would be equivalent to Bool.
And the reason I don't use Bool is so that the code is more strongly-typed and self-documenting. Also not a strong opinion
3 participants
Changelog
Context
See #1149
How to trust this PR
Ensure that only the specified restriction was lifted and in the appropriate places. Ensure this is the right thing to do. Confirm I interpreted this message correctly: https://discord.com/channels/1136727663583698984/1239888777015590913/1364244737602879498
Checklist