Repository navigation
Bill sysio.bond Bonds Rows to the Sysio RAM Pool #762
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
Open
heifner
wants to merge
5
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
fix/bond-rows-bill-sysio
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+49
−23
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
da61841
Bill sysio.bond bonds rows to the sysio RAM pool
heifner b141472
Merge origin/master into fix/bond-rows-bill-sysio
heifner 75dd260
Merge origin/master into fix/bond-rows-bill-sysio
heifner 3400619
Merge origin/master into fix/bond-rows-bill-sysio
heifner 047890f
Test that a privileged underwriter's bond row bills sysio
heifner File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Binary file not shown.
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't love removing the general test, since it should still be applicable. Could you instead create a new test for the privileged account case and keep the old test passing as it was (with the non-privileged user paying)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The change applies to every underwriter, not only privileged ones.
accepttakes any underwriter (require_authonly), andbonds.setnow usesram_payerfor every row. Before, only a privileged underwriter's row billedsysio, throughpayer_for. The renamed test keeps the old test's case, a non-privileged underwriter (alice), with the new expected payer, so the old assertion can't pass without reverting the change. I've addeda_privileged_underwriter_bills_sysiofor a privileged underwriter and reworded the description to say everybondsrow billssysio.