-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
refactor: input note authentication deduced by client #1624
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
juan518munoz
wants to merge
12
commits into
next
Choose a base branch
from
jmunoz-simplify-transaction-builder-note-inputs
base: next
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8ad3365
refactor: transaction builder only takes one type of note
juan518munoz 1925d41
docs: run typedoc / update markdown files
juan518munoz ae4110d
chore: address pending TODOs
juan518munoz 3e3feca
Merge branch 'next' into jmunoz-simplify-transaction-builder-note-inputs
juan518munoz a9e5113
chore: address PR comment
juan518munoz fb7b469
Merge branch 'next' into jmunoz-simplify-transaction-builder-note-inputs
juan518munoz 2b9bc78
chore: rename variable
juan518munoz 8db0e04
chore: address PR comments
juan518munoz 4f4a2f5
Merge branch 'next' into jmunoz-simplify-transaction-builder-note-inputs
juan518munoz c655226
Merge branch 'next' into jmunoz-simplify-transaction-builder-note-inputs
SantiagoPittella 3873f12
Merge branch 'next' into jmunoz-simplify-transaction-builder-note-inputs
SantiagoPittella c07e634
fix: pase notes to build_consume_notes
SantiagoPittella File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As mentioned in #1112 (comment), this does make this scenario a bit more inconvenient. I guess we could add some other way of expressing notes via note IDs but maybe this defeats the original purpose. Nothing to do for now but just making a note. Would be nice to know @mmagician's opinion on this.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One possibility I can think of is wrapping the input notes the
TransactionRequestBuilderreceives in some sort of enum:This way we can still take just
NoteIds from the user, and fail in the case where the requested note is not present in our store.What do you think?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Following on the proposed
enum, if we keep the current procedure of passing all fullNotesregardless of if they are authenticated or not, we have a possible security flaw:NoteAwith noteId123is on the client store as an authenticated note.AlicepassesNoteBwith noteId123as an input note.The current implementation does not have this vulnerability, as we are using the notes retrieved from the store:
But a future "optimization" might use the provided notes instead.