Revert "xcm: Do not require Asset to be sorted on decode"#10459
Revert "xcm: Do not require Asset to be sorted on decode"#10459
Asset to be sorted on decode"#10459Conversation
This reverts commit 5e28de7.
karolk91
added
T6-XCM
| pub fn from_sorted_and_deduplicated_skip_checks(r: Vec<MultiAsset>) -> Self { | ||
| Self::from_sorted_and_deduplicated(r).expect("Invalid input r is not sorted/deduped") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
revert?
there is a newline between all functions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR is a revert of #9842 so it reverts all the changes that 9842 introduced even new added new lines
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, I understand, but can we un-revert this change as part of this PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry I've missed last comment here but still I think it was better to revert exactly the thing without any modifications (even new lines).
If there is some formatting inconsistency I think its better to fix this on the formatter config level anyway
acatangiu
added
the
R0-no-crate-publish-required
franciscoaguirre
left a comment
franciscoaguirre
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think deleting the prdoc and putting the "silent" label on this PR makes sense
|
Created backport PR for
Please cherry-pick the changes locally and resolve any conflicts. git fetch origin backport-10459-to-stable2512
git worktree add --checkout .worktree/backport-10459-to-stable2512 backport-10459-to-stable2512
cd .worktree/backport-10459-to-stable2512
git reset --hard HEAD^
git cherry-pick -x 34034a943bf67268f9e59a991f00eef1ff1fb9c8
git push --force-with-lease |
Backport #10459 into `stable2512` from karolk91. See the [documentation](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/master/docs/BACKPORT.md) on how to use this bot. <!-- # To be used by other automation, do not modify: original-pr-number: #${pull_number} --> Co-authored-by: Karol Kokoszka <karol@parity.io>
5 participants
Reverts #9842
Following on the discussion at #10391, we don't want to sort at decode level but rather to not require sorting at all among the codebase