Examples: query, "exact match", wildcard*, wild?ard, wild*rd
Fuzzy search: cake~ (finds cakes, bake)
Term boost: "red velvet"^4, chocolate^2
Field grouping: tags:(+work -"fun-stuff")
Escape special characters +-&|!(){}[]^"~*?:\ - e.g. \+ \* \!
Range search: properties.timestamp:[1587729413488 TO *] (inclusive), properties.title:{A TO Z}(excluding A and Z)
Combinations: chocolate AND vanilla, chocolate OR vanilla, (chocolate OR vanilla) NOT "vanilla pudding"
Field search: properties.title:"The Title" AND text
Back to post

Revisions 3

9 months ago
Inconsistent slice when calling my_address() in different contexts
Inconsistent slice when calling my_address() in different contexts
I am encountering an inconsistency when calling `my_address()` in different contexts and hope someone can help me understand why this is happening. When I call `my_address()` within get function, it returns a slice that starts with 0 bits, as shown below: ``` CS{Cell{004380008d090b360188f0560ee4010388f181ad345579022d85d84b0ac904ead5acb410} bits: 0..267; refs: 0..0} ``` Conversely, when I call `my_address()` within an impure function, it returns a slice that starts with 1 bit: ``` CS{Cell{026fc0004684859b00c4782b07720081c478c0d69a2abc8116c2ec25856482756ad65a0254910843292a22680000000001ab3f0500bd26da1340} bits: 1..268; refs: 0..0} ``` Despite these differences, when I parse both addresses with parse_std_addr, they return the same workchain and 256-bit integer address: ``` workchain = 0 integer address = 1993502832782254581058910437300945815969310326214648768594806511355848123808 ``` Therefore, when calculating a child contract address using my_address, it yields different results depending on the context in which it's called. Can anyone explain why this is happening and how I should handle it?
I am encountering an inconsistency when calling `my_address()` in different contexts and hope someone can help me understand why this is happening. When I call `my_address()` within get function, it returns a slice that starts with 0 bits, as shown below: ``` CS{Cell{004380008d090b360188f0560ee4010388f181ad345579022d85d84b0ac904ead5acb410} bits: 0..267; refs: 0..0} ``` Conversely, when I call `my_address()` within an impure function, it returns a slice that starts with 1 bit: ``` CS{Cell{026fc0004684859b00c4782b07720081c478c0d69a2abc8116c2ec25856482756ad65a0254910843292a22680000000001ab3f0500bd26da1340} bits: 1..268; refs: 0..0} ``` Despite these differences, when I parse both addresses with parse_std_addr, they return the same workchain and 256-bit integer address: ``` workchain = 0 integer address = 1993502832782254581058910437300945815969310326214648768594806511355848123808 ``` Therefore, when calculating a contract address using my_address, it yields different results depending on the context in which it's called. Can anyone explain why this is happening and how I should handle it?
#
#
9 months ago
Inconsistent slice when calling my_address() in different contexts
Inconsistent Bit Slice Start When Calling my_address() in Different Contexts
I am encountering an inconsistency when calling `my_address()` in different contexts and hope someone can help me understand why this is happening. When I call `my_address()` within get function, it returns a slice that starts with 0 bits, as shown below: ``` CS{Cell{004380008d090b360188f0560ee4010388f181ad345579022d85d84b0ac904ead5acb410} bits: 0..267; refs: 0..0} ``` Conversely, when I call `my_address()` within an impure function, it returns a slice that starts with 1 bit: ``` CS{Cell{026fc0004684859b00c4782b07720081c478c0d69a2abc8116c2ec25856482756ad65a0254910843292a22680000000001ab3f0500bd26da1340} bits: 1..268; refs: 0..0} ``` Despite these differences, when I parse both addresses with parse_std_addr, they return the same workchain and 256-bit integer address: ``` workchain = 0 integer address = 1993502832782254581058910437300945815969310326214648768594806511355848123808 ``` Therefore, when calculating a contract address using my_address, it yields different results depending on the context in which it's called. Can anyone explain why this is happening and how I should handle it?
I am encountering an inconsistency when calling `my_address()` in different contexts and hope someone can help me understand why this is happening. When I call `my_address()` within get function, it returns a slice that starts with 0 bits, as shown below: ``` CS{Cell{004380008d090b360188f0560ee4010388f181ad345579022d85d84b0ac904ead5acb410} bits: 0..267; refs: 0..0} ``` Conversely, when I call `my_address()` within an impure function, it returns a slice that starts with 1 bit: ``` CS{Cell{026fc0004684859b00c4782b07720081c478c0d69a2abc8116c2ec25856482756ad65a0254910843292a22680000000001ab3f0500bd26da1340} bits: 1..268; refs: 0..0} ``` Despite these differences, when I parse both addresses with parse_std_addr, they return the same workchain and 256-bit integer address: ``` workchain = 0 integer address = 1993502832782254581058910437300945815969310326214648768594806511355848123808 ``` Therefore, when calculating a contract address using my_address, it yields different results depending on the context in which it's called. Can anyone explain why this is happening and how I should handle it?
#
#
9 months ago
Original
Inconsistent Bit Slice Start When Calling my_address() in Different Contexts

I am encountering an inconsistency when calling `my_address()` in different contexts and hope someone can help me understand why this is happening. When I call `my_address()` within get function, it returns a slice that starts with 0 bits, as shown below: ``` CS{Cell{004380008d090b360188f0560ee4010388f181ad345579022d85d84b0ac904ead5acb410} bits: 0..267; refs: 0..0} ``` Conversely, when I call `my_address()` within an impure function, it returns a slice that starts with 1 bit: ``` CS{Cell{026fc0004684859b00c4782b07720081c478c0d69a2abc8116c2ec25856482756ad65a0254910843292a22680000000001ab3f0500bd26da1340} bits: 1..268; refs: 0..0} ``` Despite these differences, when I parse both addresses with parse_std_addr, they return the same workchain and 256-bit integer address: ``` workchain = 0 integer address = 1993502832782254581058910437300945815969310326214648768594806511355848123808 ``` Therefore, when calculating a contract address using my_address, it yields different results depending on the context in which it's called. Can anyone explain why this is happening and how I should handle it?
#