View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0010909 | Taler | merchant backend | public | 2026-01-23 19:09 | 2026-02-04 20:00 |
| Reporter | sebasjm | Assigned To | Christian Grothoff | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Target Version | 1.4 | Fixed in Version | 1.4 | ||
| Summary | 0010909: update insteance should not require email | ||||
| Description | I have created a instance using the admin which doesn't require email I wanted to update the payment delay but failed because email is required curl 'https://merchant.taler/instances/we/private' \ -X 'PATCH' \ -H 'Authorization: Bearer secret-token:1AEM56VAF8NV3SNBQ1K8M3RMYWE9TFMSAW50NTANZNWYZAPQWCX0' \ --data-raw '{"default_pay_delay":{"d_us":3600000000},"default_refund_delay":{"d_us":7200000000},"default_wire_transfer_delay":{"d_us":10800000000},"use_stefan":true,"name":"we","email_validated":false,"phone_validated":false,"merchant_pub":"SXTFPAQXH7EXY3E0Y2CNGBK8ETH5R8GFWJJSGGW8XHJT1KTE3K40","address":{},"jurisdiction":{},"default_wire_transfer_rounding_interval":"NONE","auth":{"method":"token"}}' { "code": 25, "hint": "A required parameter in the request was missing. This is likely a bug in the client implementation. Check if you are using the latest available version and/or file a report with the developers.", "detail": "email" } So to solve this issue if the email is not present => email should not be required The next question is, what should happen when the email is present & validated but missing in the update? 1) should we make it required? so the user can't remove the email 2) should we keep it optional? then onUpdate if the email was present & validated => the user wants to remove and disable mfa for the instance | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
If it is present, it must remain present. After all, we *require* it when the instance is self-provisioned, and removing it to disable 2-fa is just a terrible idea. But I can change the code to not require *adding* it if it is unset. |
|
|
Should be fixed. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-23 19:09 | sebasjm | New Issue | |
| 2026-01-24 16:37 | Christian Grothoff | Note Added: 0027332 | |
| 2026-01-24 16:37 | Christian Grothoff | Assigned To | => Christian Grothoff |
| 2026-01-24 16:37 | Christian Grothoff | Status | new => assigned |
| 2026-01-25 06:30 | Christian Grothoff | Note Added: 0027333 | |
| 2026-01-25 06:30 | Christian Grothoff | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2026-01-25 06:30 | Christian Grothoff | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2026-01-25 06:30 | Christian Grothoff | Fixed in Version | => 1.4 |
| 2026-02-04 20:00 | Christian Grothoff | Status | resolved => closed |
