nearcore
nearcore copied to clipboard
near
We should unwrap or expect on borsh `try_to_vec`
Most of the code (all) that uses try_to_vec will never have an error from Borsh. Right now it's confusing which error a function can throw and some of them don't even need to return an Error at all.
If we replace try_to_vec()? with try_to_vec().expect("borsh") then the code going to be easier to handle. E.g.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 2 months. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
![stale[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1724?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 2 months. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 2 months. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 2 months. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
Hi may I check if swapping propagation of error to expect statements still a good approach for this Issue?
Hi may I check if swapping propagation of error to expect statements still a good approach for this Issue?
I think so. cc @matklad
@AnhTuDo1998 yes, we should generally add .expect to every try_to_vec. The devil is in details though -- we need to carefully check under which conditions this can actually panic (NaNs and collections longer than u32::MAX elements I think) and double-check that we can't hit such cases.
