这是indexloc提供的服务,不要输入任何密码
Skip to content

Conversation

@RafilxTenfen
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@RafilxTenfen RafilxTenfen marked this pull request as ready for review January 6, 2025 12:14
@RafilxTenfen RafilxTenfen self-assigned this Jan 6, 2025
Copy link
Member

@Lazar955 Lazar955 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

utack and lgtm!

Copy link
Member

@gitferry gitferry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One major concern I have is that we should support user to run this command without db which stores the pk and keyname mapping. In this case, the user should be able to sign pop by keyname

@RafilxTenfen
Copy link
Contributor Author

One major concern I have is that we should support user to run this command without db which stores the pk and keyname mapping. In this case, the user should be able to sign pop by keyname

he can use either the key name or eots-pk

Copy link
Member

@gitferry gitferry left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

he can use either the key name or eots-pk

Ah I see. I thought loading the db is necessary. Lgtm then. Think we should test this case then somehow. And how do we test it with the api?

.golangci.yml Outdated
- nlreturn
- noctx
- nonamedreturns
# - nonamedreturns named returns are good
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hm, would disagree with this

@RafilxTenfen RafilxTenfen merged commit 5e68a2e into main Jan 7, 2025
12 checks passed
@RafilxTenfen RafilxTenfen deleted the rafilx/export-pop branch January 7, 2025 12:46
RafilxTenfen added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2025
RafilxTenfen added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2025
#262 

New release v0.4.1 after this is merged
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.

6 participants