View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0008097 | Taler | wallet-core | public | 2024-01-16 17:51 | 2024-04-15 21:32 |
| Reporter | Florian Dold | Assigned To | Florian Dold | ||
| Priority | high | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Target Version | 0.10 | Fixed in Version | 0.10 | ||
| Summary | 0008097: getBalances has confusing semantics for pendingOutgoing amount [estimate: 3h] | ||||
| Description | The pendingOutgoing amount currently indicates that amount that the wallet has already allocated to be spend, but did not spend yet. However, a peer-push-debit transaction is *not* counted towards pendingOutgoing, because technically the coins were already spend (deposited in the purse!). We should either: (a) update the definition of pendingOutgoing (b) create a new field in getBalances that also counts peer-push-debit transactions Similarly, we need to review pendingIncoming. Do invoiced (i.e. peer-pull-credit) count towards pendingIncoming? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
For pendingIncoming, we already have badges which show the user that they must do something (wire-transfer, KYC, AML) to continue/finish the transaction. In case of peer-pull-credit it's the other party that need to do something (pay) to finish the transaction, but the user of this wallet can't do anything. Thus there is already a distinction. |
|
|
I think a peer-push should be included in pending outgoing, as the coins have been spent. And if by the expiration time the receiver has not merged the purse and we get the coins back, well, that should be treated just like a refund (maybe shown differently, but in terms of the balance updates). |
|
|
We've now reached consensus that a pending peer-push-debit transaction should count towards the getBalances and that the semantics of pendingOutgoing are *different* than those of earmarked transactions of a bank account. Consequently, the pendingOutgoing must never be rendered like an earmarked balance, i.e. it must *not* be rendered as a red, negative value. Fixed in wallet-core here: commit 4b9cbe58025bf7082d0c79ee596200628b5d8c47 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Author: Florian Dold <florian@dold.me> Date: Thu Mar 28 12:27:26 2024 +0100 wallet-core: count peer-push-debit towards pending outgoing balance Also check balance in the integration test. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-01-16 17:51 | Florian Dold | New Issue | |
| 2024-01-16 17:51 | Florian Dold | Status | new => assigned |
| 2024-01-16 17:51 | Florian Dold | Assigned To | => Florian Dold |
| 2024-01-16 22:18 | MarcS | Note Added: 0020895 | |
| 2024-03-08 22:41 | Florian Dold | Priority | normal => high |
| 2024-03-27 19:25 | Christian Grothoff | Note Added: 0022014 | |
| 2024-03-27 21:15 | Florian Dold | Summary | getBalances has confusing semantics for pendingOutgoing amount => getBalances has confusing semantics for pendingOutgoing amount [estimate: 3h] |
| 2024-03-28 12:29 | Florian Dold | Status | assigned => resolved |
| 2024-03-28 12:29 | Florian Dold | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2024-03-28 12:29 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0022029 | |
| 2024-04-09 13:11 | Christian Grothoff | Fixed in Version | => 0.10 |
| 2024-04-15 21:32 | Christian Grothoff | Status | resolved => closed |
