-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
chore: keystore transaction signing #1532
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
| chain === Chain.BitcoinCash | ||
| ? (toolbox as UTXOToolboxes["BCH"]).buildTx | ||
| : (toolbox as UTXOToolboxes["BTC"]).createTransaction; | ||
| const createTxMethod = (toolbox as UTXOToolboxes["BTC"]).createTransaction; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I need to fix this up real quick 👁️ 👁️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah maybe not
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Beauty ;)
Free to merge after restoring BCH ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a playground on which I can test this swap plugin?
|
|
||
| const isEVMTransaction = (tx: unknown) => EVMTransactionSchema.safeParse(tx).success; | ||
| const isTronTransaction = (tx: unknown) => TronTransactionSchema.safeParse(tx).success; | ||
| const isCosmosTransaction = (tx: unknown) => CosmosTransactionSchema.safeParse(tx).success; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we have isUtxoTransaction , Near and Solana helpers too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No - those falls into generic type afaik
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is just testing the tx that API sends, against the schemas I copied from the API repo to have type safety
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So no need for the API to have access to that, that would be kinda ... in a circle.
API defines types
SDK manually has to copy them
API uses manually copied types to check their own types
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It supposed to be taken from API typings like openapi or sth - but we never got those in place
Its the deployment I am building for Ochhii |
No description provided.