Substitute lodash calls in bitcore-lib #3350
Conversation
picnicbear
force-pushed
the
bitcore-lib/removeLodash
branch
from
71cabec to
6f0a0ab
Compare
… of _.sortBy, fix multiple issues resulting from regex replacements
…convert more forEaches, fix a reduce
…re-lib/removeLodash
…efined type checks
| @@ -69,10 +68,10 @@ BlockHeader._fromObject = function _fromObject(data) { | |||
| $.checkArgument(data, 'data is required'); | |||
| var prevHash = data.prevHash; | |||
| var merkleRoot = data.merkleRoot; | |||
| if (_.isString(data.prevHash)) { | |||
| if (typeof data.prevHash === 'string') { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is false if data.prevHash instanceof String, whereas _.isString(new String('')) == true
| return new BN(str, base); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| BN.fromBuffer = function(buf, opts) { | ||
| if (typeof opts !== 'undefined' && opts.endian === 'little') { | ||
| if (opts !== undefined && opts.endian === 'little') { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably make opts !== undefined be opts != null to avoid unnecessary confusion for a user passing in a null variable. There should be no difference between
BN.fromBuffer(buf);
and
var opts = null;
BN.fromBuffer(buf, opts);
Same on line 89
Maybe consider changing all checks for undefined to checks for null as well (i.e. === undefined --> == null)
| @@ -74,7 +60,7 @@ MultiSigInput.prototype.getSignatures = function(transaction, privateKey, index, | |||
|
|
|||
| var self = this; | |||
| var results = []; | |||
| _.each(this.publicKeys, function(publicKey) { | |||
| this.publicKeys.forEach(function(publicKey) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason why you did .forEach instead a a for..of loop here?
| @@ -122,7 +116,7 @@ MultiSigScriptHashInput.prototype.getSignatures = function(transaction, privateK | |||
|
|
|||
| var self = this; | |||
| var results = []; | |||
| _.each(this.publicKeys, function(publicKey) { | |||
| this.publicKeys.forEach(function(publicKey) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
.forEach instead of for..of?
| @@ -16,13 +15,13 @@ function Output(args) { | |||
| if (!(this instanceof Output)) { | |||
| return new Output(args); | |||
| } | |||
| if (_.isObject(args)) { | |||
| if (typeof args === 'object') { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
need to change all of these typeof ... === 'object' to use JSUtil.isObject
| if (Array.isArray(privateKey)) { | ||
| privateKey.forEach(privateKey => this.sign(privateKey, sigtype, signingMethod)); | ||
| } else { | ||
| this.getSignatures(privateKey, sigtype, signingMethod).forEach((signature) => { |
| @@ -1222,40 +1207,34 @@ Transaction.prototype.applySignature = function(signature, signingMethod) { | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| Transaction.prototype.isFullySigned = function() { | |||
| _.each(this.inputs, function(input) { | |||
| this.inputs.forEach(function(input) { | |||
| * @description sort an array in place based on toString values | ||
| * @param {*[]} array | ||
| */ | ||
| sort: array => array.sort((a, b) => a.toString() > b.toString() ? 1 : a.toString() < b.toString() ? -1 : 0), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would probably be helpful to at least have a comment saying that this is an ascending sort. Might I suggest we have sortAsc and sortDesc functions? Just so we can avoid ambiguity.
| * @param {*} obj | ||
| * @returns {Boolean} | ||
| */ | ||
| isObject: obj => typeof obj === 'object' && !!obj, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is good. I think we should add similar functions for isNumber and isString and replace all the typeof <whatev>'s with them. What do you think? There are inconsistencies with checking typeof <xyz> === 'number' and typeof <xyz> === 'number' && !isNaN(<xyz>), plus the latter is a bit verbose.
Also, Number and String class instances would fail the typeof test, but would pass the lodash equivalents.
| transaction.outputs.should.include(out1); | ||
| transaction.outputs.should.include(out2); | ||
| transaction.outputs.should.include(out3); | ||
| transaction.outputs.should.include(out4); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't test for randomness anymore
|
The problem referenced in #3358 still applies to the |
No description provided.