refactor: create dedicated native functions for the AA object creation #9485
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub. 6 Skipped Deployments
|
iota-ci
added
sc-platform
valeriyr
force-pushed
the
vm-lang/aa-auth/9459-aa-creation-native-functions
branch
from
2d4a719 to
067190c
Compare
| if current_module | ||
| .value | ||
| .is(&IOTA_ADDR_VALUE, TRANSFER_FUNCTION_NAME) | ||
| .is(&IOTA_ADDR_VALUE, TRANSFER_MODULE_NAME) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was a typo, here the module name is checked, it worked because:
TRANSFER_FUNCTION_NAME == TRANSFER_MODULE_NAME == transfer
| "migration", | ||
| "beta", | ||
| "development", | ||
| "account", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should think about the usage of simply "account" for a module name, might be limiting in the future.
| ident_str!("borrow_auth_info_v1"), | ||
| ident_str!("has_auth_info_v1"), | ||
| ]; | ||
| pub const PRIVATE_ACCOUNT_FUNCTIONS: &[&IdentStr] = &[ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As for consideration we can rename private to internal to not confuse these private functions with visibility modifiers at least.
| Ok(()) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn verify_private_account( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
An adition to my previous comment above.
Is this function verifies some "private" account or "private" functions that account contains?
I would suggest to add a comment that explains what actually happens here despite of possible renaming.
It's about all similar methods.
Dkwcs
left a comment
Dkwcs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, left comments for consideration
[run-ci]
Description of change
The account creation Move API was simplified by removing
AuthenticatorInfoV1CompatibilityProof.Links to any relevant issues
fixes #9459