Resolves issue 621 #629
Open
Resolves issue 621 #629
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
Changing KEY_BACKSPACE size on ToolsDiceEntropy and ToolsCoinFlip screens
Missed import sentence for commands added on last commit
This reverts commit 7c26811.
This reverts commit e8b0e35.
On class SeedExportXpubQRDisplayView(View): Replaces "Destination" return call from MainMenuView to ScanAddressView. Rest of changes are for passing seed_num between class calling.
Changes for passing seed_num between class calling (for ScanAddressView class).
Test for seed views workflow affected.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Because workflow of exportpubkey would must to be securely closed verifying addresses obtained on wallet software (Sparrow, for instance), issue reported #621 is conceptual consistent.
This pull request is categorized as a:
Checklist
pytestand made sure all unit tests pass before sumbitting the PR. They was updated, too.If you modified or added functionality/workflow, did you add new unit tests?
I have tested this PR on the following platforms/os:
Note: Keep your changes limited in scope; if you uncover other issues or improvements along the way, ideally submit those as a separate PR. The more complicated the PR the harder to review, test, and merge.