-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
test: Add more test cases for Base58 parser #5174
Open
ximinez
wants to merge
9
commits into
XRPLF:develop
Choose a base branch
from
ximinez:pr/base58-tests
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+12
−3
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9c1b088
test: Add more test cases for Base58 and NFTs
ximinez 046f49c
Oops. Remove duplicated function.
ximinez 2472ba1
[FOLD] Review feedback from @vlntb
ximinez 6408a35
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez d188efb
[FOLD] Move [[maybe_unused]] to make linux clang compiler happy
ximinez cef381f
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez e3983dc
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez f5d9361
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez a7d0dd3
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/develop' into pr/base58-tests
ximinez File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
[nit] For me the intention is not very clear - is this a deliberate scope introduction or a mistake in using
if
statement. To make it clearer I would mark the borders of the scope ofif
explicitly to make clearly separate for the new scope.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.
Yeah, now that you mention it, it does look a little off. I changed the test a little bit to make that all clearer, and to remove the need to parse
s
twice.