-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 159
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix the bug in Transaction.isSorobanTransaction to accommodate BumpFootprintExpirationOperation. #518
Fix the bug in Transaction.isSorobanTransaction to accommodate BumpFootprintExpirationOperation. #518
Conversation
…otprintExpirationOperation.
2c5cfbb
to
986dafb
Compare
4cde87d
to
96eebcd
Compare
account.getAccountId(), | ||
Transaction.MIN_BASE_FEE, | ||
account.getIncrementedSequenceNumber(), | ||
new org.stellar.sdk.Operation[] {operation, operation}, |
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.
i think only single op needed in tx correct? otherwise isSorobanTransaction=false, but for non-tested reason, i.e. it's more than one op, it won't validate op instance mismatch yet.
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.
This test is to verify that a transaction containing multiple operations is not a soroban transaction. You can take a look at https://github.com/stellar/java-stellar-sdk/pull/518/files#diff-0114ab460186855a151f487001dae40013372c8430be55eeebdb6e24bfc12705R448
assertFalse(transaction.isSorobanTransaction());
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.
there is already another test for asserting multi-op - testIsSorobanTransactionMultiOperations
outcome, I think this test was intending to exercise a non-multi op code path but an incorrect op type, which seemed to be the intent, just pass one operation
and it should verify same false outcome.
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.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I have already corrected it. 🤦
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.
great test coverage to assert fix.
@overcat , 0.41.0-beta.3 was published, thank you! |
Fix #517
We need to release a new version, and I have already included it in 96eebcd.
Due to the instability of Android testing on API 33 / GitHub Action, I have removed it from the deploy needs. I need some time to investigate this issue as it runs fine on my local machine.