refactor: Use chainman() helper consistently in ChainImpl #25638

1. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 8:01 am on July 19, 2022: member

   Doing anything else will just lead to more verbose and inconsistent code.
2. refactor: Use chainman() helper consistently in ChainImpl fa32b1bbfd
3. fanquake added the label Refactoring on Jul 19, 2022
4. 
   jamesob commented at 1:10 pm on July 19, 2022: member

   Concept ACK, will review shortly
5. fanquake approved
6. 
   fanquake commented at 10:19 am on July 20, 2022: member

   ACK fa32b1bbfd418410c47b2a33c6fa106371288138 - all instances of Assert(m_node.chainman) in node/interfaces replaced with chainman(), which is the same thing.
7. shaavan approved
8. 
   shaavan commented at 12:20 pm on July 20, 2022: contributor

   Code Review ACK fa32b1bbfd418410c47b2a33c6fa106371288138

   • I agree with making the code less verbose while maintaining the same logic behind it.
   • Verified that using chainman() is equivalent to Assert(m_node.chainman)

   0ChainstateManager& chainman() { return *Assert(m_context->chainman); }
   

   • Verified that all instances of Assert(m_node.chainman) are replaced with chainman().
9. MarcoFalke merged this on Jul 20, 2022
10. MarcoFalke closed this on Jul 20, 2022

    ---

11. MarcoFalke deleted the branch on Jul 20, 2022
12. 
    jonatack commented at 4:32 pm on July 20, 2022: contributor

    Post-merge ACK
13. sidhujag referenced this in commit 24fdb06473 on Jul 20, 2022
14. bitcoin locked this on Jul 20, 2023

Contributors
MarcoFalke jamesob fanquake shaavan jonatack

Labels
Refactoring