Skip to content

Conversation

@williamdemeo
Copy link
Member

@williamdemeo williamdemeo commented Oct 1, 2025

Description

This closes issue #934.

Checklist

  • Commit sequence broadly makes sense and commits have useful messages
  • Any semantic changes to the specifications are documented in CHANGELOG.md
  • Code is formatted according to CONTRIBUTING.md
  • Self-reviewed the diff

@williamdemeo williamdemeo linked an issue Oct 1, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
2 tasks
@williamdemeo williamdemeo marked this pull request as ready for review October 1, 2025 03:38
Copy link
Collaborator

@carlostome carlostome left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Left some comments here and there. Some are related to the content of Transaction not the migration itself but I thought we could use the opportunity to improve it.

Comment on lines 53 to 54
+ The hash of the serialized form of the transaction that was included
in the block.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Missing what field this is talking about

-->


## Transaction Functions
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Auxiliary functions?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it's better if the header of the section of each module where functions related to that module are defined should refer to the name of the module itself; we already do this elsewhere, e.g., "Certification Functions" (or "Certificates Functions"?), "Governance Functions", etc. Making the subsection titles more specific, less generic, seems preferable to me.

\begin{code}
```

*Abstract types*
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe make these headings into subsubsections?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmmm... that might be a good idea. I'm not sure. We've always had these kinds of type labels, since the era of pdfs. Of course, that doesn't mean it's the right way to present them. But I wonder if it's best to keep record types contained in a single subsection, rather than spreading their fields across subsections. 🤔 That might be better for getting a "high level" understanding of the code. Though I suppose splitting a large record up into subsections with explanatory prose would make it easier to explain things at a "low level."

Well, I'll leave it for now and we can discuss whether improvements should be made in a future issue/PR.

```
-->

*Derived types*
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as previous comment

```
-->

*Transaction types*
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as previous comments

@williamdemeo williamdemeo force-pushed the 934-broken-links-and-formatting-errors branch from 04e1c4c to 351e20a Compare October 2, 2025 19:38
plus final cleanup of prose

Co-authored-by: Carlos Tomé Cortiñas <[email protected]>
@williamdemeo williamdemeo force-pushed the 934-broken-links-and-formatting-errors branch from 351e20a to 021604b Compare October 2, 2025 19:43
@williamdemeo williamdemeo merged commit 021604b into master Oct 2, 2025
3 checks passed
@williamdemeo williamdemeo deleted the 934-broken-links-and-formatting-errors branch October 2, 2025 19:44
@williamdemeo williamdemeo self-assigned this Nov 11, 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.

broken links and formatting errors

2 participants