Closed druzn3k closed 1 year ago
Don't mind the name of the super trait, it's meant to be temporary till discussed with you.
I see what you mean, although I have a different set of false positives.
I think i've fixed it by simplifying the trait to just require the super traits on the storage trait itself. We can do this since you need to meet these requirements anyway.
Thank you, I will take a look at your commit right away.
Ok @ChillFish8, I've seen the modification. It was the first approach that I wanted to do but discarded because I thought that was done like this for a reason and I didn't want to break existing codes. I will edit the PR title and text to match the current implementation.
It was the first approach that I wanted to do but discarded because I thought that was done like this for a reason and I didn't want to break existing codes.
Ah no, it was just left over from incrementally building it and the required constraints. Let me know when this is good to go :)
For me it's good to go, if the title and descriptions fits the required standard.
Storage
now implements explicitly also the traitsSend + Sync + 'static
, as they are needed everywhereStorage
is needed. Thanks to @ChillFish8 for the guidance.