algod: Minor improvements to simulation support #749
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
algochoi
reviewed
Mar 21, 2023
| txHeaders | ||
| txHeaders, | ||
| this.query, | ||
| false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this parseBody parameter seems to parse to JSON by default:
https://github.com/algorand/js-algorand-sdk/blob/develop/src/client/client.ts#L261
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the underlying problem is that post and delete assume the response is always application/json. Probably they should use getAcceptFormat(query) like get does to figure out the actual response format.
But I'm ok with leaving this as-is for now, since passing parseBody as false is sufficient for the time being. We can address that problem with a separate issue/PR
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR makes some minor, but important changes to the simulate support introduced in #743. They are:
SimulateRawTransactionswas returning a raw object instead of an instance ofSimulateResponse. Based on the code I think we wanted aSimulateResponseAtomicTransactionComposer.execute. I made a new try-catch block to include it again. This is especially important because it can be dangerous if a client thinks a transaction was rejected due to an error observing its result, but in reality the transaction succeeded.