fix: updated claim name availability check to support multiple claim addresses #382
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
area: devops
area: discovery
area: docs
area: livestream
area: proposal
consider soon
dependencies
Epic
good first issue
hacktoberfest
help wanted
icebox
level: 1
level: 2
level: 3
level: 4
needs: exploration
needs: grooming
needs: priority
needs: repro
needs: tech design
on hold
Osprey
priority: blocker
priority: high
priority: low
priority: medium
protocol dependent
resilience
Tom's Wishlist
type: bug
type: discussion
type: error handling
type: improvement
type: new feature
type: refactor
type: task
type: testing
unplanned
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: LBRYCommunity/spee.ch#382
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "348-multiple-wallet-addresses"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
claimNameIsAvailable
to check the Claim table rather than File tableclaimNameIsAvailable
to be able to check with multiple claim addressesapi/claim/availability
andapi/channel/availability
endpointsSome feedback, but nothing blocking. You do not need to have me review the PR again to merge.
I'm confused by this function, though I would have been equally confused before this changeset. If we're querying our own DB, why do we have to consider just the ones with a certain address? Is that because the DB contains all claims?
Also, if the addresses are in the DB, can't this filtering be done in SQL rather than JS?
This seems like an odd pattern - what's this doing?
Always use brackets for if statements IMO.
Also - is Prettier and/or a linter not set up for this project? It can catch and even fix ones like this.
yes to linter, not yet to Prettier (#375)
Yes, the table that is being queried contains all claims, so we have to filter out claims belonging to this address. I wonder if there would be reason to create a separate table for claims the site owns? We avoided doing that previously because it seemed to be unnecessarily duplicative.