This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 11, 2024. It is now read-only.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Implement getNFT function of NFT module #9034
Implement getNFT function of NFT module #9034
Changes from 3 commits
bf507ef
cd9fe08
b1f62e7
e123602
adbfbde
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the reason the code is catching and re-throwing the error from
getNFT()
method?getNFT()
already throws 2 types of errors, depending on if the entry is missing from NFT store or from User store.It seems that this try/catch not only complicates the command verification, but also provide less accurate error message than if there was no try/catch here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In this particular case (and verify hook of other commands), I think it makes sense to emit more granular error(s). And yes it'll get rid of the try-catch. Since this code will already be replaced by
verifyTransfer
, I'll apply the suggestion directly in the internal functions in PR #9005 instead of redundant update here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
applies to other places, but the error can be false because it's possible to have error with different reason. (ex: DB is dead)
It would be better not to ignore the error received. At least, we should wrap it if we want to have additional message
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
will update in the internal functions in PR #9005 to catch and throw if error is other than expected 👍