[FIX] Refine isContract call to support Present design #158
Conversation
|
@benjamincburns I don't know if this would be a preferred solution or just completely removing as in #119 |
|
Thanks for the contribution, @adibas03! I think the right way to fix this is to remove the check, as in #119. My desire in adding the check in the first place was to give people feedback during development when they sent would-be contract call transactions to simple (non-contract) addresses. It seems that this check has caused more pain than it has alleviated, however. |
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| // Contract just being deployed, code yet to exist at adress | ||
| if (!rawTx.to || rawTx.to === '0x0' || rawTx.to === '0x' || rawTx.to === '0') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, I think contract deployment only happens when the to field is completely missing. It's completely valid to send a transaction with data to address zero.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That said, to is a DATA field (per the RPC wiki), so the zero-length value of 0x should probably also be considered a contract deployment.
|
@benjamincburns |
Fixes #117
@bernardpeh created #119 which completely removes the contract call check, which was closed as tests were not passing.
This handles the possible scenarios under which it is a contract call and only checks for for code presence if it should already exist.