View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0005032 | Taler | wallet (WebExtension) | public | 2017-05-24 21:43 | 2017-06-06 12:18 |
| Reporter | Christian Grothoff | Assigned To | Florian Dold | Resolution deadline | |
| Implementer | Reviewer | ||||
| Release signed by | Deployed by | ||||
| Verifier | Communicator | ||||
| Data protection authority notification required | No | ||||
| CSIRT notification required | No | ||||
| Estimated effort (hours) | Actual effort (hours) | 0 | |||
| Fast-track | No | ||||
| Work package | none | ||||
| Priority | normal | Severity | trivial | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Platform | i7 | OS | Debian GNU/Linux | OS Version | squeeze |
| Product Version | git (master) | ||||
| Target Version | 0.3 | Fixed in Version | 0.3 | ||
| Summary | 0005032: wallet complains: Error: exception (superfluous properties ["payback"]) | ||||
| Description | Using the 0.2.2 wallet against the latest exchange, I get the above error when /keys is requested (where the payback array is empty, but the member is present). I _suspect_ this is an older version of the wallet, even though there isn't a newer one on the site(s). Regardless, I wanted to question that we die hard under this circumstance (withdraw is no longer possible), as this will prevent us from easily extending the protocol with additional information. Naturally, if there is a future version of the protocol and /keys has more information it is not good if the wallet doesn't understand it, but I think a _warning_ may be more appropriate in this case ("property XXX not understood, maybe you should update your wallet?") and _allowing_ the user to proceed anyway. WDYT? | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Yeah, it makes sense to turn off the strict validation for the contract. I think we should do this selectively though, an amount for example should never have extra fields. | |
| Eh, to be clear: this is not the contract, this is /keys. | |
| Resolved in 41f152b. I don't think it's a good idea to include the "maybe you should update your wallet" based on this though. If we really want this, the exchange should publish some wallet_protocol field in /keys and if the wallet wants it can check it. Printing this warning for extra fields is bad, since a newer wallet could also remove support for deprecated fields and the exchange could be too old! | |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-05-24 21:43 | Christian Grothoff | New Issue | |
| 2017-05-24 21:43 | Christian Grothoff | Status | new => assigned |
| 2017-05-24 21:43 | Christian Grothoff | Assigned To | => Florian Dold |
| 2017-05-25 00:00 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0012157 | |
| 2017-05-25 00:05 | Christian Grothoff | Note Added: 0012158 | |
| 2017-05-27 13:08 | Florian Dold | Status | assigned => informing |
| 2017-05-27 13:08 | Florian Dold | Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2017-05-27 13:08 | Florian Dold | Note Added: 0012161 | |
| 2017-05-28 21:01 | Christian Grothoff | Fixed in Version | => 0.3 |
| 2017-06-06 12:18 | Christian Grothoff | Status | informing => closed |
| 2023-04-13 18:37 | Florian Dold | Category | wallet (WebExtensions) => wallet (WebExtension) |