Creating new OrderbookYaml and DotrainYaml structs #1043
Conversation
| chain_id: require_string( | ||
| &value, | ||
| Some("chain-id"), | ||
| Some(format!("chain-id string missing in network: {key}")), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think saying string here is a bit confusing, because it's also an error in the next step if it's a string (because it can't be parsed to a u64). from the user perspective if they put "one", that's not valid, but this error indicates it would be
| let key = key.as_str().unwrap_or_default().to_string(); | ||
| let network = Network { | ||
| document: document.clone(), | ||
| name: key.clone(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i know it's not part of this PR, but i think the name field should be renamed to "key" as it's more generic and can be used across all the structs, whereas "name" collides with Token name for example
| @@ -45,9 +47,81 @@ impl Network { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| pub fn parse_networks_from_yaml( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we make this generic like parse_all_from_yaml could it be trait?
| .map(|(key, value)| { | ||
| let key = key.as_str().unwrap_or_default().to_string(); | ||
| let network = Network { | ||
| document: document.clone(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if you clone the document it will still hold the reference back to the original right?
Motivation
See issue: #1035
Solution
OrderbookYamlandDotrainYamlChecks
By submitting this for review, I'm confirming I've done the following:
Missing things
DotrainYaml