View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0006631Talerobsolete componentpublic2022-11-04 20:53
ReporterChristian Grothoff Assigned ToMS  
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Platformi7OSDebian GNU/LinuxOS Versionsqueeze
Product Versiongit (master) 
Target Version0.9Fixed in Version0.9 
Summary0006631: various http status codes returned by the python bank are highly questionable
Description653f6ae..3298ef8 marks those with 'WTF'. (Also introduces symbolic names.)

Please check the status codes, and:
- unless there is a good reason, change as indicated, alas also
- ensure they are consistent with what LibEuFin does, if applicable
- ensure that they are consistent with the bank API documentation
- ensure that they are acceptable to the test cases
- ensure that they match the documented HTTP status code in GANA
TagsNo tags attached.



2020-10-30 11:12

reporter   ~0017067

Status codes changed here: 354bf3cf733d8d97a82e951d1b9a2f5a161d03cd. Tests are also passing. Other checks reported in the bug description are still work in progress.


2020-10-30 18:16

reporter   ~0017070

The three discussed status codes are returned, respectively, after the (three) exceptions below:

  someone tried to ask the public history of a non public account. This happens only
  in a HTML response, and for this reason there is no documentation to check.

  this is raised in two, very, rare cases: (1) the customer who is withdrawing coins and
  the exchange have the same (!!) account. (2) The exchange and the merchant being paid
  have the same (!!) account. This case too seems avoidable to document.

  yes, this needs to be documented. According to some research, the only place where
  this can (programmatically) happen is where a exchange pays a merchant (but has no
  sufficient balance for it.)

Christian Grothoff

2020-11-03 22:53

manager   ~0017100

MS: are you asking a question about those three cases? I'm a bit confused what (if anything) is needed by you to resolve this.


2020-11-03 23:00

reporter   ~0017101

I wrote it more to point out that only one case (the last) is eligible to be documented. Because the bug report asks to 'check if they are consistent with the bank API documentation'.

Christian Grothoff

2021-01-01 16:42

manager   ~0017292

Has this been fixed? If not, please do so soon!

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2020-10-29 00:44 Christian Grothoff New Issue
2020-10-29 00:44 Christian Grothoff Status new => assigned
2020-10-29 00:44 Christian Grothoff Assigned To => MS
2020-10-29 00:44 Christian Grothoff Description Updated
2020-10-30 11:12 MS Note Added: 0017067
2020-10-30 18:16 MS Note Added: 0017070
2020-10-31 10:32 Christian Grothoff Target Version 0.8 => 0.8.1
2020-11-03 22:53 Christian Grothoff Note Added: 0017100
2020-11-03 23:00 MS Note Added: 0017101
2021-01-01 16:42 Christian Grothoff Note Added: 0017292
2021-08-24 20:53 Christian Grothoff Target Version => 0.9
2022-07-18 17:43 Christian Grothoff Status assigned => resolved
2022-07-18 17:43 Christian Grothoff Resolution open => fixed
2022-07-18 17:43 Christian Grothoff Fixed in Version => 0.9
2022-08-23 20:26 Christian Grothoff Category bank (demonstrator) => py bank (demonstrator, obsolete)
2022-11-04 20:53 Christian Grothoff Status resolved => closed
2023-12-03 01:23 Christian Grothoff Category py bank (demonstrator, obsolete) => obsolete componet
2023-12-11 20:08 Florian Dold Category obsolete componet => obsolete component