Skip to content

[Spike] Evaluate network and envelope portability for transaction fixtures #74

Description

@knytcomics-ui

Category

Spike

Question

Should fixtures remain TESTNET-only, or support multiple passphrases, signed envelopes, fee bumps, and network variants?

Context

The testkit documents unsigned TESTNET XDRs while the extension decoder accepts explicit networks and fee-bump transactions.

Why This Matters

These assumptions affect decoder correctness, realism, signing-flow tests, and fixture reuse.

Areas to Investigate

PUBLIC versus TESTNET, signed versus unsigned envelopes, fee bumps, hashes, metadata, naming, and deterministic generation.

Evaluation Criteria

Realism, reproducibility, security, consumer complexity, storage, and compatibility.

Expected Deliverables

Support matrix, recommended variants, one prototype, and migration guidance.

Acceptance Criteria

  • Current assumptions are inventoried.
  • Two portability strategies are compared.
  • One representative variant is prototyped.
  • Hash/signature/passphrase implications are documented.

Follow-Up Opportunities

May lead to network metadata or signed-envelope fixtures.

Cross-Repository Impact

Testkit and extension, with possible adapter normalization impact.

Complexity

Spike

Impact

Medium — prevents unsafe fixture assumptions.

Suggested Labels

spike, area: fixtures, area: cross-repo

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

GrantFox OSSIssue tracked in GrantFox OSSMaybe RewardedIssue may be eligible for a GrantFox rewardThird CampaignCampaign: Third Campaignarea: cross-repoContracts with sibling Gryd-lock reposarea: fixturesDestination and transaction fixture coverageenhancementNew feature or requestspike

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions