- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Oct 4 2023
In D13244#327646, @Fabien wrote:Do you really need this ? Chainstate already has a public CChainParams member, can't this be used (it can be accessed from CChainstateManager.active_chainstate) instead ?
Responding to feedback
remove unrelated line break
Remove newline
Removed the xecAmount override as it was only needed for the original mock data that was not aligned with the latest alias spec, hence previously returning change. This is no longer the case with the latest mocks. This also removes the previous comment around updating the spec.
no need to verify the sig in the test, it is done via keystore.sign_transaction -> Transaction.sign -> Transaction._sign_txin -> Transaction.verify_signature
Following further testing, moving the alias server error logic to the first useEffect that uses balances.totalBalance as a dependency is the right approach. Have verified this useEffect block is triggered upon app load, Alias.js component load and post-registration broadcast. Additional verification can be done by malforming the alias-server endpoint used in useWallet's refreshAliases and in Alias.js' preparePreviewModal.
Back to your queue, the test is failing
Build Bitcoin ABC Diffs / Diff Testing (preview-e.cash) passed.
Preview is available at http://54.39.19.73:41912 for the next 60 minutes.
@bot preview-e.cash
Do you really need this ? Chainstate already has a public CChainParams member, can't this be used (it can be accessed from CChainstateManager.active_chainstate) instead ?
Upon further testing, both useEffects are being triggered upon Alias.js load. Going to have a think about the most efficient approach to this.
Responding to feedback
Oct 3 2023
I'm not understanding why the amount is wrong. The alias registration tx should just be a "send" tx to the IFP address. So the sent amount should be everything that isn't change, like a normal tx.
update snapshots
move the widget down and copy edit
green w/ formatting nit
Will rehabilitate this feature with chronik improvements
For discussion in tg
rebase from hell
In D14575#327428, @Fabien wrote:Why is this change not causing a test failure ?