Skip to content
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

Trading with Revolut between v1.3.7 and v1.3.8 clients will fail #4476

Closed
ripcurlx opened this issue Sep 4, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4481
Closed

Trading with Revolut between v1.3.7 and v1.3.8 clients will fail #4476

ripcurlx opened this issue Sep 4, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4481

Comments

@ripcurlx
Copy link
Member

ripcurlx commented Sep 4, 2020

Description

As we are requiring now a username to trade Revolut based on feedback from Mediators it won't be possible to trade Revolut between v1.3.7 and v1.3.8 clients. This is caused by a breach of contract.

Version

v1.3.8

Steps to reproduce

Use old client (v1.3.7) with Revolut account using phone number and new client (v1.3.8) using a username.

Screenshots

Bildschirmfoto 2020-09-04 um 11 09 12

This might cause confusion during the transition phase.

We could either force everyone to update to v1.3.8 or mention it in the update message so people are aware of this problem.
The problem with just mentioning is, that it will affect clients updating to v1.3.8 and clients who stay on v1.3.8 causing this error when trying to take an incompatible offer.

If we don't want to do a force update maybe we should filter out at least v1.3.7 Revolut offers for v1.3.8 clients.

@ripcurlx
Copy link
Member Author

ripcurlx commented Sep 4, 2020

@chimp1984 What do you think? ☝️

@chimp1984
Copy link
Contributor

I will have a look. Is probably because we set username to old accountID fields so for old and new there are different values, so the contract does not match.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants