feat: private field access for RawXxx types
#535
Merged
Conversation
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
Certain custom `Account` implementations require access to these internal fields, as they do more than just signing on the transaction hash. Exposing these fields offers the maximum flexibility on how accounts sign transactions.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Certain custom
Accountimplementations require access to these internal fields, as they do more than just signing on the transaction hash. Exposing these fields offers the maximum flexibility on how accounts sign transactions.Not exposing these fields results in exotic implementations like this one. So it's really not good.
Adding getters instead of just making the fields
pubthough, to still retain a certain degree of encapsulation.