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 |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | git (master) | ||||
| 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. |
|
|
FIXME: the functions: 1) TALER_EXCHANGE_deposit 2) TALER_EXCHANGE_track_transaction 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. |
|
|
Fixed in: https://git.taler.net/exchange.git/commit/?id=8c820b6916 https://git.taler.net/exchange.git/commit/?id=4363911618 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. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 2017-02-06 12:10 | Florian Dold | Description Updated | |
| 2017-02-06 14:31 | Marcello Stanisci | Note Added: 0011694 | |
| 2017-02-06 14:48 | Marcello Stanisci | Note Edited: 0011694 | |
| 2017-02-06 14:49 | Marcello Stanisci | Note Edited: 0011694 | |
| 2017-02-06 14:52 | Marcello Stanisci | Note Edited: 0011694 | |
| 2017-02-06 15:36 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0011695 | |
| 2017-02-06 15:44 | Marcello Stanisci | Note Edited: 0011694 | |
| 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 | => git (master) |
| 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 |
