Skip to content
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

chore: rename DepositTxEnvelope to OpTransaction #105

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Rjected
Copy link
Collaborator

@Rjected Rjected commented Jan 21, 2025

This just changes the name / location of what is currently DepositTxEnvelope, and changing docs to mention that this abstracts over any type of OP transaction, which is why the is_deposit fn may return false, or the as_deposit fn may return None, etc.

Copy link
Contributor

@refcell refcell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Generally happy with this. Makes it a bit more concise than deposit tx envelope

Copy link
Member

@emhane emhane left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see a need to generalise the name of this trait, as far now, OP only has one additional transaction type. DepositTxEnvelope rather have super trait TransactionEnvelope trait declared in alloy-rs/alloy#1910 . If the trait be renamed, it makes more sense to rename it to OpTxEnvelope.

Comment on lines +25 to +26
DepositTransaction, L1InfoDepositSource, TxDeposit, UpgradeDepositSource, UserDepositSource,
DEPOSIT_TX_TYPE_ID,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
DepositTransaction, L1InfoDepositSource, TxDeposit, UpgradeDepositSource, UserDepositSource,
DEPOSIT_TX_TYPE_ID,
DepositTransaction, L1InfoDepositSource, TxDeposit, UpgradeDepositSource, UserDepositSource,
DEPOSIT_TX_TYPE_ID, OpTransaction

@emhane
Copy link
Member

emhane commented Jan 21, 2025

closing in favour of #118 and #120

@emhane emhane closed this Jan 21, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants