__isset() in the Operation object returns true, and __get() returns empty array.
In /path/two:
__isset() in the Operation object returns false, and __get() returns either empty array or null.
Alternativelly, I also might expect __isset() to return false, but __get() return the default security defined at contract root level. I consider this possibility as it is a solution similar like how references work in the scope of this library.
However, the problem is that what I actually get in both paths, is __isset() = true and __get() = empty array. As I get the same result in both, there is no way to determine that/path/onedoes not have at all security (and therefore, could be called directly), and that/path/twohas default security.
I have an example of contract that has the following structure (summerized to highlight the relevant):
Theoreticaly, I expect:
/path/one
:__isset()
in theOperation
object returnstrue
, and__get()
returns empty array./path/two
:__isset()
in theOperation
object returnsfalse
, and__get()
returns either empty array ornull
.__isset()
to returnfalse
, but__get()
return the defaultsecurity
defined at contract root level. I consider this possibility as it is a solution similar like how references work in the scope of this library.However, the problem is that what I actually get in both paths, is
__isset()
=true
and__get()
= empty array. As I get the same result in both, there is no way to determine that/path/one
does not have at all security (and therefore, could be called directly), and that/path/two
has default security.