fix(types): forbid "remainder" field at the middle of a contract storage #1301
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
…nspection for contracts Fixes #765
anton-trunov
requested changes
Jan 14, 2025
i582
changed the title
anton-trunov
approved these changes
Jan 14, 2025
anton-trunov
deleted the
pmakhnev/forbid-remaining-field-for-middle-field-of-contract
branch
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Issue
Closes #765.
This PR actually contains a tiny refactoring, now we have theFalse waycheckAggregateTypesfunction with only one loop over all types, instead of two as before (it just looked a bit weird after the initial changes I made). However, I don't think we need 2 PRs here (implementation and refactoring :)Checklist