accounts/abi: fix resolving single struct argument #23573
Merged
Conversation
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
rjl493456442
requested review from
MariusVanDerWijden and
gballet
as code owners
yongjun925
pushed a commit
to DODOEX/go-ethereum
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2022
9 tasks
gzliudan
added a commit
to gzliudan/XDPoSChain
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 24, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Supersedes #23557
Fixes #23551
This PR fixes an issue in abi package for resolving single struct argument. More specifically, after resolving values from the binary stream, these values need to be assigned to the golang container. And usually the golang receiver is a struct in order to contain multiple return values. But if the return value is a single struct then the first field of the receiver struct should be used as the inner receiver. Previously this case is skipped somehow and in this PR it's fixed.