feat(xrpl): add contains flag utility#197
Merged
GuillemGarciaDev merged 2 commits intoXRPLF:mainfrom Feb 25, 2026
Merged
Conversation
GuillemGarciaDev
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2026
Collaborator
GuillemGarciaDev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice PR, just a small change!
GuillemGarciaDev
requested changes
Feb 25, 2026
Collaborator
GuillemGarciaDev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a little change
GuillemGarciaDev
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
feat(xrpl): add contains flag utility
Description
This PR aims to create a new utility package
flagand use it across the existingtransactionandledger-entry-typesto check bitwise flags in a consistent and reusable way.Type of change
Checklist:
Changes
xrpl
Notes
My first thought was to use
currentFlag & flag != 0, which returns true if any bit overlaps between the two flags. This would have worked fine in most cases since flags are usually single-bit, but it breaks down for multi-bit flags where only a subset of bits match. For a function namedContains, the correct semantic is that all bits of the flag must be present, so I went with(currentFlag & flag) == flaginstead. Aflag != 0guard was also added since without it,(x & 0) == 0would always be true, silently making zero flags pass the check.