address complaints of flake8 in jmclient #837
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I looked at the parts you wanted me to look at (as discussed on IRC) and they all seem fine to me. Curious why flake8 prefers hextobin() over the binascii function |
Oh it wasn't that, just that the binascii import had been removed so it was undefined there. (and as is probably obvious I've put hextobin/bintohex as wrappers in jmbase and used everywhere now). |
|
I pulled the code and successfully sync'd some regtest wallets with it. |
AdamISZ
force-pushed
the
jmclient-flake-1
branch
from
8c3f5c8 to
adbbb24
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
First of 4 (probably) PRs to address flake8.
@chris-belcher please take a look at the change in
wallet_service.pyand also (not addressed here but just above that change frombinascii.unhexlifytohextobin) there is an issue with the use of the return value ofBitcoinCoreInterface.get_deser_from_gettransaction(it's not the same object type as before). I don't know why I didn't pick this up during that huge rebase (apart from the word 'huge', of course) at the time. I think we're going to find a couple more things like this when we go through it.