Skip to content

Conversation

@tequdev
Copy link
Member

@tequdev tequdev commented Nov 21, 2025

High Level Overview of Change

Refactor to explicitly use keylet::permissionedDomain in PermissionedDomainDelete processing.

Context of Change

  1. Refactor to explicitly use keylet::permissionedDomain in PermissionedDomainDelete processing.
  2. Fix to retrieve the Owner from the pDomain's Owner field instead of the Account field of the transaction. (This is a non-breaking change as these are checked to be the same value in preclaim().)

Type of Change

  • Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 21, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 78.6%. Comparing base (adbeb94) to head (5b25a5b).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           develop   #6063   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage     78.6%   78.6%           
=======================================
  Files          818     818           
  Lines        68989   68990    +1     
  Branches      8249    8236   -13     
=======================================
+ Hits         54203   54217   +14     
+ Misses       14786   14773   -13     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...c/xrpld/app/tx/detail/PermissionedDomainDelete.cpp 100.0% <100.0%> (ø)

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

Impacted file tree graph

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Comment on lines -57 to +58
auto const ownerSle = view().peek(keylet::account(account_));
auto const owner = (*slePd)[sfOwner];
auto const ownerSle = view().peek(keylet::account(owner));
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why the change here? They are already checked that they are the same in preclaim

Copy link
Member Author

@tequdev tequdev Nov 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

because it is more intuitive.
Future readers of this code will no longer need to check preclaim.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably better to split it into another PR?

@bthomee bthomee requested a review from a1q123456 November 21, 2025 16:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants