editorial: improve transaction code language#459
Merged
Conversation
Sakurann
approved these changes
Feb 13, 2025
Sakurann
requested review from
bc-pi,
c2bo,
danielfett,
javereec and
tplooker
tplooker
approved these changes
Feb 17, 2025
c2bo
approved these changes
Feb 18, 2025
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
4 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The previous language was not clear enough that the presence of the
tx_codeobject indicates the requirement of a transaction code, even if the object was empty. This PR fixes this. Also consideredinput_modefor the empty object. Editorial only.