feat(proxy): consider contracts in /address #10
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
previous logic was asuming that all addresses were accounts. new logic considers contract case.
aon
approved these changes
Nov 4, 2024
packages/proxy/src/routes/address.ts
Outdated
Comment on lines
87
to
89
| } else { | ||
| throw new HttpError(`Unknown account type: ${data}`, 424); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Account type is already validated to be contract or account, this code is probably never executed.
aon
approved these changes
Nov 4, 2024
removed code that could never be executed.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What ❔
Consider contracts in
/address/:addressWhy ❔
Old logic was assuming that the response was always for an account. But that endpoint can also return data about a contract. We need to consider both cases with different criteria.
Checklist