This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 13, 2023. It is now read-only.
Changes m_owners and m_ownerIndex to use address instead of uint.#148
Closed
MicahZoltu wants to merge 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom
MicahZoltu:patch-1
Closed
Changes m_owners and m_ownerIndex to use address instead of uint.#148MicahZoltu wants to merge 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom MicahZoltu:patch-1
m_owners and m_ownerIndex to use address instead of uint.#148MicahZoltu wants to merge 1 commit intoethereum:masterfrom
MicahZoltu:patch-1
Conversation
It is unclear why this code was using `uint` previously instead of `address`. If `address` is what is intended, `address` should be used. Using `address` not only makes the intent more clear, it allows the static analyzer to validate the code. Also, tooling will now work better with this contract since the types are correct. If these variables were intentionally `uint`, I am curious to know the reason why and at the least there should be a comment in the code indicating why they are `uint`.
|
The correct repo to do this is: https://github.com/ethereum/dapp-bin/ This is not just a categorization issue, it's because we'd rather keep such an important part of the code being reviewed by more people as they are more involved in the solidity security aspect of the wallet contract code. I do not feel comfortable reviewing the security implications of any changes to the wallet.sol contract I would call attention to this discussion, where you can see that @bencxr and @CJentzsch are also doing some substantial rewrites of the wallet code. ethereum/dapp-bin#58 (comment) Thanks for your contributions anyway! |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
It is unclear why this code was using
uintpreviously instead ofaddress. Ifaddressis what is intended,addressshould be used. Usingaddressnot only makes the intent more clear, it allows the static analyzer to validate the code.Also, tooling will now work better with this contract since the types are correct.
If these variables were intentionally
uint, I am curious to know the reason why and at the least there should be a comment in the code indicating why they areuint.