This demonstrates good practice in restricting the chaincode package
versions to those applicable for the specific Fabric (major/minor)
version targeted for deployment.
Also some corrections to the repository README. Particularly referring
to other branches for samples targeted at earlier Fabric versions, since
samples in the main branch may exploit features not available in older
Fabric releases, which can cause confusion for end users.
Signed-off-by: Mark S. Lewis <Mark.S.Lewis@outlook.com>
* fixed comment consistency problem with erc20 chaincode
Signed-off-by: Ali Shahverdi <ali@Alis-MacBook-Pro.local>
* added more comment consistancy fix
Signed-off-by: Ali Shahverdi <ali@Alis-MacBook-Pro.local>
* added more comment consistancy fix
Signed-off-by: Ali Shahverdi <ali@Alis-MacBook-Pro.local>
* added more comment consistancy fix
Signed-off-by: Ali Shahverdi <ali@Alis-MacBook-Pro.local>
* added more comment consistancy fix
Signed-off-by: Ali Shahverdi <ali@Alis-MacBook-Pro.local>
Signed-off-by: Ali Shahverdi <ali@Alis-MacBook-Pro.local>
Co-authored-by: Ali Shahverdi <ali@Alis-MacBook-Pro.local>
Using the ERC-20 sample, you can submit a transfer to and from
the same account. Because the code doesn't handle this, it ends
up minting new tokens into that account.
The correct behaviour is not specified by the ERC-20 specification,
although the OpenZeppelin implementation seems to permit it.
IMO we should just block it with an error because I can't see a use
case for allowing it and it is most likely a user error.
Signed-off-by: Simon Stone <sstone1@uk.ibm.com>
