Skip to content

remove statics dependency from sol module #6272

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 23, 2025
Merged

remove statics dependency from sol module #6272

merged 4 commits into from
Jun 23, 2025

Conversation

mukeshsp
Copy link
Contributor

@mukeshsp mukeshsp commented Jun 10, 2025

Refer to the ticket description for details.
Ticket : WIN-5679

@mukeshsp mukeshsp force-pushed the sol-statics branch 11 times, most recently from 3c04edd to a2815d4 Compare June 13, 2025 06:36
@mukeshsp mukeshsp changed the title fixing the sol module remove statics dependency from sol module Jun 13, 2025
@mukeshsp mukeshsp marked this pull request as ready for review June 13, 2025 11:20
@mukeshsp mukeshsp requested a review from a team as a code owner June 13, 2025 11:20
@@ -291,7 +303,8 @@ export class Transaction extends BaseTransaction {
const instructionParams = instructionParamsFactory(
this.type,
this._solTransaction.instructions,
this._coinConfig.name
this._coinConfig.name,
this._instructionsData
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We may need to pass the token contract address in outputs, instructionData might not be available when building from a raw tx.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you share the example ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Try to build a transaction from raw txHex of any unsupported token transaction, it will throw an error.

@mukeshsp mukeshsp requested a review from veetragjain June 17, 2025 04:13
Comment on lines +888 to +889
if (!token && _useTokenAddressTokenName) {
token = mintAddress;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not pass tokenName undefined and token address as a separate fields and the populate token name and token address both in outputs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since the approach was suggested by you, we can't pass the token name as undefined—these instructions are used in multiple places, which could lead to errors due to the undefined value.

@mukeshsp mukeshsp merged commit 4f4593b into master Jun 23, 2025
13 of 14 checks passed
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants