Implement create and sign any transaction functionality in Lisk Transactions - Closes #3739 #3834
Conversation
| recipientId: | ||
| recipientId || getAddressFromPublicKey(recipientPublicKey) | ||
| senderPublicKey: | ||
| senderPublicKey || getPrivateAndPublicKeyFromPassphrase(passphrase), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
senderPublicKey will be an object with public and private key if senderPublicKey === null
|
|
||
| transaction.sign(passphrase, secondPasshprase); | ||
|
|
||
| return JSON.stringify(skipUndefined(transaction.toJSON())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
JSON.stringify removes keys with undefined values.
No need to use skipUndefined here.
MaciejBaj
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Maciej Baj <macie.baj@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Maciej Baj <macie.baj@gmail.com>
MaciejBaj
force-pushed
the
3739-create_sendable
branch
from
ae737ac
to
db742c8
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ | |||
| import { getAddressFromPublicKey } from '@liskhq/lisk-cryptography'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
import should come after license
| export const decideOnRecipientId = ( | ||
| recipientId?: string | null, | ||
| recipientPublicKey?: string, | ||
| noValue = '', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it seems doesn't need this input.
I think we can just return empty string in the last line.
same for below
| @@ -221,6 +219,10 @@ export abstract class BaseTransaction { | |||
| return transaction; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public stringify(): string { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what's the reasoning to add this function?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
console.log(new MyTransaction(...).sign('my passphrase').sendable())
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you mean console.log(new MyTransaction(...).sign('my passphrase').stringify())?
when should it be used like this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, I meant this, before sending :)
| * | ||
| */ | ||
|
|
||
| export const decideOnRecipientId = ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
decideOnRecipientId doesn't describe what it's doing.
Maybe safeGetRecipientId? (which doesn't sounds good too)
| @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ | |||
| * | |||
| */ | |||
| export * from './address'; | |||
| export * from './constructor'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
constructor is reserved word, it should use other name.
safe_get_ids might be better? depends on the function names
| } | ||
| // Obtain senderId out of senderPublicKey if no recipientId | ||
| if (senderPublicKey) { | ||
| return getAddressFromPublicKey(senderPublicKey); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this could fail and throw an error, same as above
|
Proceeded by #3890. |
What was the problem?
There wasn't a functionality allowing to create and sign any transaction extending BaseTransaction in an easy way.
Review checklist