Add TypesafeBackend.getReceivedTransactionOutputs#1868
Draft
Conversation
str4d
commented
Dec 18, 2025
| #zcash_proofs = { git = "https://github.com/zcash/librustzcash", branch = "main" } | ||
| #zcash_protocol = { git = "https://github.com/zcash/librustzcash", branch = "main" } | ||
|
|
||
| [patch.crates-io] |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR is marked as draft; it must not be merged until this patch is removed after the next zcash_client_sqlite release.
nesence-m
approved these changes
Dec 22, 2025
nesence-m
left a comment
nesence-m
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
utACK
Kotlin side looks fine & I've rerun the 1 failed job. On local it works fine, it should pass now tho
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 join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Author
Reviewer
Footnotes
Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs. ↩
While we aim for automated testing of the SDK, some aspects require manual testing. If you had to manually test
something during development of this pull request, write those steps down. ↩
While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed. Code coverage can be generated with:
./gradlew checkfor Kotlin modules and./gradlew connectedCheck -PIS_ANDROID_INSTRUMENTATION_TEST_COVERAGE_ENABLED=truefor Android modules. ↩Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit. ↩
In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass. ↩
While the CI server runs the demo app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the demo app are
more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data. Perform this step last, after verifying the code changes are safe to run locally. ↩