View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0004883||Taler||exchange||public||2017-02-06 12:06||2017-06-06 14:18|
|Reporter||Florian Dold||Assigned To||Florian Dold|
|Priority||normal||Severity||minor||Reproducibility||have not tried|
|Product Version||SVN HEAD|
|Target Version||0.3||Fixed in Version||0.3|
|Summary||0004883: either remove transaction_id from exchange or use it for multiple payments for the same proposal|
|Description||Before the contract->proposal rename, the exchange got the transaction_id from the merchant, but never did anything with it.|
After the rename, the merchant has a order_id instead of a transaction_id, but the transaction_id might still be used to disambiguate multiple payments from the same proposal between merchant BACKEND and exchange. The merchant-frontend or wallet should never see it.
However, it is not clear whether the mechant-backend and exchange really need the transaction_id, or the hash of the (normalized / with sorted coins) deposit permission suffices.
EDIT: we need it, since coins are deposited with multiple independent API calls, and we need to correlate those.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
||Christian, you're more familiar with the exchange but currently out of office, can you give your opinion on this so I can work on it?|
Ohh, what I said above is wrong actually. We submit coins one-by-one, so we can't use the deposit permission hash.
We still need the transaction_id! But it's only visible between merchant-backend and exchange.
in the exchange's lib needs to
1) rename the transaction_id to order_id (Not sure about that: from the exchage's perspective, they might be _transactions_)
2) type it as "const char *" (as now it's uint64_t)
3) remove the use of h_contract.
||Not quite, the exchange never actually cares about the order_id. We must keep transaction_id as it's important for the merchant taxation when having multiple payments per proposal.|
Note that the transaction_id is still there, but on the wallet/merchant's side, it won't be part of the contract anymore. It's only used to group deposits together on the merchant side for tax and wire transfer reasons.
|2017-02-06 12:06||Florian Dold||New Issue|
|2017-02-06 12:06||Florian Dold||Status||new => assigned|
|2017-02-06 12:06||Florian Dold||Assigned To||=> Florian Dold|
|2017-02-06 12:07||Florian Dold||Note Added: 0011690|
|2017-02-06 12:08||Florian Dold||Note Added: 0011691|
|2017-02-06 12:09||Florian Dold||Description Updated||View Revisions|
|2017-02-06 12:10||Florian Dold||Description Updated||View Revisions|
|2017-02-06 14:31||Marcello Stanisci||Note Added: 0011694|
|2017-02-06 14:48||Marcello Stanisci||Note Edited: 0011694||View Revisions|
|2017-02-06 14:49||Marcello Stanisci||Note Edited: 0011694||View Revisions|
|2017-02-06 14:52||Marcello Stanisci||Note Edited: 0011694||View Revisions|
|2017-02-06 15:36||Florian Dold||Note Added: 0011695|
|2017-02-06 15:44||Marcello Stanisci||Note Edited: 0011694||View Revisions|
|2017-02-06 15:48||Florian Dold||Status||assigned => resolved|
|2017-02-06 15:48||Florian Dold||Resolution||open => fixed|
|2017-02-06 15:48||Florian Dold||Note Added: 0011696|
|2017-02-06 19:33||Christian Grothoff||Product Version||=> SVN HEAD|
|2017-02-06 19:33||Christian Grothoff||Fixed in Version||=> 0.3|
|2017-02-06 19:33||Christian Grothoff||Target Version||=> 0.3|
|2017-06-06 14:18||Christian Grothoff||Status||resolved => closed|