Unlimited spending limit #384

AeonSw4n · 2022-07-11T22:53:46Z

No description provided.

* protect concurrent access to memepool db * move lock to open db method * add lock to loadtxns function * what happens if we just dont dump on the timer * disable perodic memepool dumper in tests * manually load txns * manually set memepool dir * Update lib/block_view_bitcoin_test.go Co-authored-by: Lazy Nina <81658138+lazynina@users.noreply.github.com>

…n; some tests

…limit

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T13:51:26Z

lib/block_view_bitcoin.go

@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ func (bav *UtxoView) _connectBitcoinExchange(
 	if len(txn.PublicKey) != 0 {
 		return 0, 0, nil, RuleErrorBitcoinExchangeShouldNotHavePublicKey
 	}
-	if txn.Signature != nil {
+	if txn.Signature.Sign != nil {


nit: unrelated to postgres, but maybe safer to leave the initial nil check like txn.Signature != nil && txn.Signature.Sign != nil.

I think we're gucci with just txn.Signature.Sign != nil since txn.Signature is not a pointer. Actually, the compiler screams at me for trying txn.Signature != nil.

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T13:53:33Z

lib/block_view_derived_key.go

+func AssembleAccessBytesWithMetamaskStrings(derivedPublicKey []byte, expirationBlock uint64,
+	transactionSpendingLimit *TransactionSpendingLimit, params *DeSoParams) []byte {
+
+	encodingString := "DECENTRALIZED SOCIAL\n\n"


nit: another one unrelated to postgres, maybe there's no other option, but it feels weird to be doing string-interpolation UI in core. more natural would be to pass a struct and do string-interpolation in a client/front-end. maybe not possible w/ metamask, in which case this is fine.

Ah good observation! So what this does is it actually creates an alternative access bytes format that's equivalent to the traditional access bytes schema of [derivedPublicKey, expirationBlock, SpendingLimit]. The idea is to have metamask-friendly access bytes so that we can display them like this in the Metamask UI https://imgur.com/a/3iU2rmI. When the user then signs this message through Metamask, core will validate the signature on this string.

lib/block_view_derived_key_test.go

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T14:03:26Z

lib/block_view_test.go

@@ -489,10 +498,17 @@ func TestBasicTransfer(t *testing.T) {
 	_ = assert
 	_ = require

-	chain, params, db := NewLowDifficultyBlockchain()
+	postgres := InitializeTestPostgresInstance(t)


IMO this logic should be refactored into some test_utils. Individual tests shouldn't have to know the specifics of a postgres instance initialization. Also ideally we would have one test and not two sister tests like _testBasicTransfer and _testBasicTransferWithPostgres.

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T14:05:31Z

lib/db_adapter.go

@@ -10,6 +10,14 @@ type DbAdapter struct {
 	snapshot   *Snapshot
 }

+func NewDbAdapter(chain *Blockchain) *DbAdapter {


To match below, maybe this makes more sense w/ a signature like func (chain *Blockchain) GetDbAdapter *DbAdapter {.

agreed with mf ^

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T14:12:18Z

lib/postgres_test.go

+
+// Config variables for spawning the postgres container.
+const CONTAINER_NAME = "test_postgresql"
+const LOCAL_PORT = "5433"


This is interesting. I assume to get around the fact that the user may be running a local postgres on the default 5432. I personally don't love spinning up a docker postgres from go code like this. Feels like action at a distance. A more common pattern may be to assume the user already has a running postgres instance (see make postgres-start + env vars from before). Or to use embedded postgres which does a lot of this for us for free.

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T14:13:17Z

lib/postgres_test.go

+	}()
+	testFunction(t, nil)
+	<-postgresChannel
+	testFunction(t, postgres)


IMO running badger + postgres in parallel like this is of limited value. More useful IMO is to run badger tests in a single CI runner and postgres tests in a parallel runner. I.e. you run the entire suite (instead of each test) over badger or postgres in parallel.

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T14:14:56Z

lib/postgres_test.go

+const LOCAL_PORT = "5433"
+const REMOTE_PORT = "5432"
+const POSTGRES_USER = "postgres"
+const POSTGRES_PASSWORD = "postgres"


I also think we lose a lot by defining the postgres params in consts like this and dropping support for the PG_URI env var which is a common way to pass in pg params. The idea may be to encapsulate all postgres logic away from the user so they don't even need to know which params are being used, but what if for example, I'm already running a secondary postgres docker container on port 5433 and need to be able to configure the port.

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T14:18:50Z

lib/postgres_test.go

+
+// startTestPostgresContainerAndConnect will spawn a postgres container with a volume mapped to some random directory,
+// and port-forwarded 0.0.0.0 : LOCAL_PORT <-> remote : REMOTE_PORT where REMOTE_PORT coincides with the postgres daemon.
+func startTestPostgresContainerAndConnect(t *testing.T) *Postgres {


I think an embedded postgres solution will solve these problems. Ideally IMO we should decouple the PR changes for an updated postgres testing setup from the changes for derived key unlimited spending limits.

mattfoley8 · 2022-07-18T14:19:45Z

lib/postgres_test.go

+}
+
+// killAllPostgresContainers removes all containers that have the name CONTAINER_NAME.
+func killAllPostgresContainers(t *testing.T) {


You shouldn't have to kill containers between tests and respawn. You should only have to migrate down and back up. Embedded postgres takes care of this for us.

lazynina

The unlimited spending limits updates here seem ok, but the postgres testing changes should be broken into a separate PR. It makes it far hard to review and I don't think we necessarily want all those the postgres testing changes and don't want to hold up this PR as we debate them.

lazynina · 2022-08-02T20:00:19Z

lib/blockchain_test.go

+	//var postgresDb *Postgres
+	//
+	//if len(os.Getenv("POSTGRES_URI")) > 0 {
+	//	postgresDb = NewPostgres(pg.Connect(ParsePostgresURI(os.Getenv("POSTGRES_URI"))))
+	//}


I agree with @mattfoley8 - not really a fan of this change. Can you provide some add'l explanation as to why this is needed?

lazynina · 2022-08-02T21:01:34Z

lib/db_adapter.go

@@ -10,6 +10,14 @@ type DbAdapter struct {
 	snapshot   *Snapshot
 }

+func NewDbAdapter(chain *Blockchain) *DbAdapter {


agreed with mf ^

lazynina · 2022-08-02T21:03:26Z

lib/network.go

@@ -4772,9 +4916,173 @@ type TransactionSpendingLimit struct {
 	// BuyingCreatorPKID || SellingCreatorPKID to number of
 	// transactions
 	DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap map[DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitKey]uint64
+
+	// ===== ENCODER MIGRATION UnlimitedDerivedKeysMigration =====
+	// IsUnlimited field determines whether this derived key has no spending limit.


Suggested change

// IsUnlimited field determines whether this derived key has no spending limit.

// IsUnlimited field determines whether this derived key can perform any transaction on behalf of its owner and does not require a no spending limit.

let's be more clear about what IsUnlimited means

lazynina · 2022-08-02T21:08:50Z

lib/postgres.go

+
+	// Only applies to a docker postgres db.
+	directory   string
+	containerId string


I don't think we really need this for a postgres db?

lazynina · 2022-08-02T21:09:45Z

lib/postgres.go

@@ -2916,3 +2944,50 @@ func (postgres *Postgres) GetNotifications(publicKey string) ([]*PGNotification,

 	return notifications, nil
 }
+
+//
+// Postgres Test tooling


agreed with MF^

lazynina · 2022-08-02T21:10:03Z

lib/postgres.go

+//
+
+// Drop all tables in the postgres Db.
+func (postgres *Postgres) resetDatabase() error {


agreed with MF^

lazynina · 2022-08-02T21:10:22Z

lib/postgres.go

+		return errors.Wrapf(err, "forceKillContainer: Problem removing postgres container")
+	}
+
+	if postgres.directory == "" {


lazynina · 2022-08-02T21:11:49Z

lib/postgres_test.go

+
+// startTestPostgresContainerAndConnect will spawn a postgres container with a volume mapped to some random directory,
+// and port-forwarded 0.0.0.0 : LOCAL_PORT <-> remote : REMOTE_PORT where REMOTE_PORT coincides with the postgres daemon.
+func startTestPostgresContainerAndConnect(t *testing.T) *Postgres {


* Adding Pearl to the list of nodes * Update nodes.go

lazynina · 2022-08-05T15:49:21Z

lib/block_view_derived_key.go

+				if transactionSpendingLimit.IsUnlimited {
+					if transactionSpendingLimit.GlobalDESOLimit > 0 ||
+						len(transactionSpendingLimit.TransactionCountLimitMap) > 0 ||
+						len(transactionSpendingLimit.CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap) > 0 ||
+						len(transactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinOperationLimitMap) > 0 ||
+						len(transactionSpendingLimit.NFTOperationLimitMap) > 0 ||
+						len(transactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap) > 0 {
+
+						return 0, 0, nil, RuleErrorUnlimitedDerivedKeyNonEmptySpendingLimits
 					}
-				}
-				for ccLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap {
-					if transactionCount == 0 {
-						delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap, ccLimitKey)
-					} else {
-						newTransactionSpendingLimit.CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap[ccLimitKey] = transactionCount
+					newTransactionSpendingLimit.IsUnlimited = true
+				} else {
+					// TODO: how can we serialize this in a way that we don't have to specify it everytime
+					// Always overwrite the global DESO limit...
+					newTransactionSpendingLimit.GlobalDESOLimit = transactionSpendingLimit.GlobalDESOLimit
+					// Iterate over transaction types and update the counts. Delete keys if the transaction count is zero.
+					for txnType, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.TransactionCountLimitMap {
+						if transactionCount == 0 {
+							delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.TransactionCountLimitMap, txnType)
+						} else {
+							newTransactionSpendingLimit.TransactionCountLimitMap[txnType] = transactionCount
+						}
 					}
-				}
-				for daoCoinLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinOperationLimitMap {
-					if transactionCount == 0 {
-						delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinOperationLimitMap, daoCoinLimitKey)
-					} else {
-						newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinOperationLimitMap[daoCoinLimitKey] = transactionCount
+					for ccLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap {
+						if transactionCount == 0 {
+							delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap, ccLimitKey)
+						} else {
+							newTransactionSpendingLimit.CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap[ccLimitKey] = transactionCount
+						}
 					}
-				}
-				for nftLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.NFTOperationLimitMap {
-					if transactionCount == 0 {
-						delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.NFTOperationLimitMap, nftLimitKey)
-					} else {
-						newTransactionSpendingLimit.NFTOperationLimitMap[nftLimitKey] = transactionCount
+					for daoCoinLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinOperationLimitMap {
+						if transactionCount == 0 {
+							delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinOperationLimitMap, daoCoinLimitKey)
+						} else {
+							newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinOperationLimitMap[daoCoinLimitKey] = transactionCount
+						}
 					}
-				}
-				for daoCoinLimitOrderLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap {
-					if transactionCount == 0 {
-						delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap, daoCoinLimitOrderLimitKey)
-					} else {
-						newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap[daoCoinLimitOrderLimitKey] = transactionCount
+					for nftLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.NFTOperationLimitMap {
+						if transactionCount == 0 {
+							delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.NFTOperationLimitMap, nftLimitKey)
+						} else {
+							newTransactionSpendingLimit.NFTOperationLimitMap[nftLimitKey] = transactionCount
+						}
+					}
+					for daoCoinLimitOrderLimitKey, transactionCount := range transactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap {
+						if transactionCount == 0 {
+							delete(newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap, daoCoinLimitOrderLimitKey)
+						} else {
+							newTransactionSpendingLimit.DAOCoinLimitOrderLimitMap[daoCoinLimitOrderLimitKey] = transactionCount
+						}
 					}
+					newTransactionSpendingLimit.IsUnlimited = false


don't love how deeply nested this section is. Can we break into a separate function to handle this logic? we're like 3 IFs deep and then doing loops inside it.

lazynina · 2022-08-05T16:04:30Z

lib/block_view_derived_key_test.go

+
+	// Verify that expiration block was persisted in the db or is in mempool utxoView
+	if mempool == nil {
+		derivedKeyEntry := NewDbAdapter(chain).GetOwnerToDerivedKeyMapping(*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey))
+		// If we removed the derivedKeyEntry from utxoView altogether, it'll be nil.
+		// To pass the tests, we initialize it to a default struct.
+		if derivedKeyEntry == nil || derivedKeyEntry.isDeleted {
+			derivedKeyEntry = &DerivedKeyEntry{
+				*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey), 0, AuthorizeDerivedKeyOperationValid, nil, transactionSpendingLimit, nil, false}
+		}
+		require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.ExpirationBlock, expirationBlockExpected)
+		require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.OperationType, operationTypeExpected)
+	} else {
+		utxoView, err := mempool.GetAugmentedUniversalView()
+		require.NoError(err)
+		derivedKeyEntry := utxoView._getDerivedKeyMappingForOwner(senderPkBytes, derivedPublicKey)
+		// If we removed the derivedKeyEntry from utxoView altogether, it'll be nil.
+		// To pass the tests, we initialize it to a default struct.
+		if derivedKeyEntry == nil || derivedKeyEntry.isDeleted {
+			derivedKeyEntry = &DerivedKeyEntry{*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey), 0, AuthorizeDerivedKeyOperationValid, nil, transactionSpendingLimit, nil, false}
+		}
+		require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.ExpirationBlock, expirationBlockExpected)
+		require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.OperationType, operationTypeExpected)
+	}


Suggested change

// Verify that expiration block was persisted in the db or is in mempool utxoView

if mempool == nil {

derivedKeyEntry := NewDbAdapter(chain).GetOwnerToDerivedKeyMapping(*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey))

// If we removed the derivedKeyEntry from utxoView altogether, it'll be nil.

// To pass the tests, we initialize it to a default struct.

if derivedKeyEntry == nil || derivedKeyEntry.isDeleted {

derivedKeyEntry = &DerivedKeyEntry{

*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey), 0, AuthorizeDerivedKeyOperationValid, nil, transactionSpendingLimit, nil, false}

}

require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.ExpirationBlock, expirationBlockExpected)

require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.OperationType, operationTypeExpected)

} else {

utxoView, err := mempool.GetAugmentedUniversalView()

require.NoError(err)

derivedKeyEntry := utxoView._getDerivedKeyMappingForOwner(senderPkBytes, derivedPublicKey)

// If we removed the derivedKeyEntry from utxoView altogether, it'll be nil.

// To pass the tests, we initialize it to a default struct.

if derivedKeyEntry == nil || derivedKeyEntry.isDeleted {

derivedKeyEntry = &DerivedKeyEntry{*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey), 0, AuthorizeDerivedKeyOperationValid, nil, transactionSpendingLimit, nil, false}

}

require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.ExpirationBlock, expirationBlockExpected)

require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.OperationType, operationTypeExpected)

}

var derivedKeyEntry *DerivedKeyEntry

// Verify that expiration block was persisted in the db or is in mempool utxoView

if mempool == nil {

derivedKeyEntry := NewDbAdapter(chain).GetOwnerToDerivedKeyMapping(*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey))

} else {

utxoView, err := mempool.GetAugmentedUniversalView()

require.NoError(err)

derivedKeyEntry := utxoView._getDerivedKeyMappingForOwner(senderPkBytes, derivedPublicKey)

}

// If we removed the derivedKeyEntry from utxoView altogether, it'll be nil.

// To pass the tests, we initialize it to a default struct.

if derivedKeyEntry == nil || derivedKeyEntry.isDeleted {

derivedKeyEntry = &DerivedKeyEntry{*NewPublicKey(senderPkBytes), *NewPublicKey(derivedPublicKey), 0, AuthorizeDerivedKeyOperationValid, nil, transactionSpendingLimit, nil, false}

}

require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.ExpirationBlock, expirationBlockExpected)

require.Equal(derivedKeyEntry.OperationType, operationTypeExpected)

we can de-dupe this code here.

lazynina · 2022-08-05T16:07:03Z

lib/block_view_derived_key_test.go

@@ -508,7 +667,7 @@ func _getAuthorizeDerivedKeyMetadataWithTransactionSpendingLimitAndDerivedPrivat
 	expirationBlockByte := EncodeUint64(expirationBlock)
 	accessBytes := append(derivedPublicKey, expirationBlockByte[:]...)

-	transactionSpendingLimitBytes, err := transactionSpendingLimit.ToBytes()
+	transactionSpendingLimitBytes, err := transactionSpendingLimit.ToBytes(0)


hmm we should probably be able to test before and after the block height. we can modify the block height at which the fork occurs by updating params.ForkHeights, so we may need to pass a height in here?

I did a very hardcore before - at - after block height test, lmk what you think

lazynina · 2022-08-05T16:08:57Z

lib/block_view_derived_key_test.go

+		transactionSpendingLimit = &TransactionSpendingLimit{
+			GlobalDESOLimit:              0,
+			TransactionCountLimitMap:     make(map[TxnType]uint64),
+			CreatorCoinOperationLimitMap: make(map[CreatorCoinOperationLimitKey]uint64),
+			DAOCoinOperationLimitMap:     make(map[DAOCoinOperationLimitKey]uint64),
+			NFTOperationLimitMap:         make(map[NFTOperationLimitKey]uint64),
+			IsUnlimited:                  true,
+		}


define a var for this unlimited spending limit struct?

We only use this like twice in the entire file, I personally prefer it to be more descriptive.

lazynina · 2022-08-05T16:11:51Z

lib/network.go

+	if tsl.IsUnlimited {
+		str += "FULL ACCESS"
+	}


If it's full access, should we even include the spending limit object? seems a little unnecessary to have both

Feels like if we don't indicate that it's full access, people might not realize how much permission this key has.

It should certainly say full access, but we should leave out the other pieces of the spending limit object like the maps and the global DESO limit.

…covery-in-signature-verification

…/unlimited-spending-limit

* added MuteList to MessagingGroupEntry struct * added TxnType validation in _connectMessagingGroup() * added MuteList to MessagingGroupEntry (for txns adding new members) * added muting and unmuting mechanism to _connectMessagingGroup() * added MuteList to RawEncodeWithoutMetadata * added MuteList to RawDecodeWithoutMetadata * moved MuteList to end of MessagingGroupEntry for backwards compatibility * added clarifying comment for MuteList * corrected typo * added MuteList to memberGroupEntry HACK * changed iii to ii * added RuleErrorMessagingMemberMuted * major muting code added (needs cleanup) * cleanup comments * fixed for loop error * deleted unused inline func * added TODO for making MuteList retrieval more efficient * fixed test typo * commented out MuteList from hacked memberGroupEntry for now * go.mod random change * fixed bug * fixed all pre-testing bugs * FIXED ALL BUGS AND ADDED TESTS * cleaned up comments * 33rd waking hour and counting... * added helpful comment * fixed unmuting bug * added unmuting tests and all successful * code cleanup * added MessagingGroupOperationMute and MessagingGroupOperationUnmute constants * replaced more constants * replaced more constants * fixed deepEqual to compare byte slices and NOT PublicKeys * fixed deepEqual to compare byte slices and NOT PublicKeys AGAIN * added gated condition to have sender and recipient in ExtraData * added comment * removed code from _disconnectMessagingGroup * added blockheight gating for messages muting * fixed existingEntry.MuteList deep copy bug * added encoder migration for DeSoV3MessagesMutingMigration * fixed HUGE testnet bug and migration bug * fixed muting code positioning * fixed deep copy bug * fixed extradata operationtype bug * fixed redundant if condition * made constant for MessagingGroupOperationType * moved contains() * throwing errors when muting already muted member or unmuting already unmuted member * made concise * removed comment * added super helpful comment * temporarily changed migration version to pass tests * FIXED MAJOR ENCODE DECODE BUG * added hacked entry optimization; fixed txn.PublicKey bug * removed comment * changed optimization comment * added prefix deprecation and replacement code * added more Deprecation code * refactored db_utils funcs and created new OptimizedMessagingGroupEntry using better prefix key structure * fixed refactoring bug; added more tests for muting while blockheight below threshold * fixed new prefix name * fixed 2 nits * cleaned up 'contains' code * added test; fixed deep equal bug * added additional unmute test * fixed deep equal nit * fixed problematic loop; added test; added RuleError * added code for groupowner not allowed to mute/unmute herself * fixed conditional dup; added extra data merging * deduplicated utxoOpsForTxn * changed comment * fixed comment grammar * added enlightening comments * added groupowner sender to ganggang in tests * [stable] Release 2.2.6 * Fix IsNodeArchival flag to include SyncTypeBlockSync This was causing nodes to reject other nodes as sync peers when they have --sync-type=blocksync but --hypersync=false even though these nodes are valid sync peers. * Simplify connect logic; start making hacked member prefix more user-friendly * Testing * More thorough testing * Temporary fix for newly-added state prefix * Another fix * fix encoding * One more pass * small rename * another pass * Fix txindex and gofmt * Rename fork height * Nina review round * Fix nil utxoview fetch Co-authored-by: Keshav Maheshwari <km02@bu.edu> Co-authored-by: lazynina <lazynina84@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: diamondhands <diamondhands@bitcloutdev.com>

AeonSw4n and others added 9 commits June 30, 2022 07:49

Add public key recovery for derived keys

8d9fd99

Revert line removed in previous PR (#381)

4887ef2

test for global spending limit

e33d26f

Remove the test

cfb8ba0

Test refactor

f9a3589

Refactor signature verification

6358125

Postgres testing framework; unlimited derived keys; postgres migratio…

10ef366

…n; some tests

Add comments on tests; finish testing signatures

08764b8

AeonSw4n mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2022

Public key recovery in signature verification #380

Merged

AeonSw4n added 3 commits July 12, 2022 12:21

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into p/unlimited-spending-…

959bb65

…limit

connect logic for unlimited derived keys

94ff678

Finish testing

a7d8e5a

AeonSw4n marked this pull request as ready for review July 13, 2022 09:17

AeonSw4n requested a review from a team as a code owner July 13, 2022 09:17

AeonSw4n added 3 commits July 13, 2022 02:18

gofmt

22ff374

Fix indentation

484cbcc

Make verify ETH signature public

1fffa32

mattfoley8 reviewed Jul 18, 2022

View reviewed changes

AeonSw4n and others added 2 commits July 22, 2022 21:43

Fix nilptr; improve testing functions

c6d5e09

Add post2earndao node (#385)

d16ac8d

lazynina requested changes Aug 2, 2022

View reviewed changes

AeonSw4n changed the base branch from main to p/public-key-recovery-in-signature-verification August 3, 2022 09:20

AeonSw4n changed the base branch from p/public-key-recovery-in-signature-verification to p/spending-limits-metamask-string August 3, 2022 09:24

Adding Pearl to the list of nodes (#388)

a50d0a4

* Adding Pearl to the list of nodes * Update nodes.go

lazynina changed the base branch from p/spending-limits-metamask-string to p/public-key-recovery-in-signature-verification August 5, 2022 15:27

lazynina requested changes Aug 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

AeonSw4n added 3 commits August 9, 2022 16:45

Merge branch 'p/spending-limits-metamask-string' into p/public-key-re…

35cc9d0

…covery-in-signature-verification

Review round

eaa0164

Merge branch 'p/public-key-recovery-in-signature-verification' into p…

6b3ce95

…/unlimited-spending-limit

AeonSw4n added 4 commits August 9, 2022 19:00

review round 1

8064592

Refactor

d84b34e

review round updates

fa9f7fd

Update go version to 1.18

522f27c

AeonSw4n mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2022

Update go version to 1.18 #390

Closed

AeonSw4n added 2 commits August 11, 2022 19:16

Merge branch 'p/update-go-version' into p/unlimited-spending-limit

c2d4777

Finish review round; hard-hardcore unlimited spending limit test

255f756

AeonSw4n changed the title ~~Postgres testing framework & Unlimited spending limit~~ Unlimited spending limit Aug 12, 2022

AeonSw4n and others added 6 commits August 12, 2022 01:31

Update ci.yml go version

882f0dc

Merge branch 'p/update-go-version' into p/unlimited-spending-limit

e9dcdd2

Reset block height

682001a

Refactor signature logic to abstract away btcec's weird CompactSignature

e2d998f

Fix tiny error-handling bug

92a0997

Add --force-checksum flag and test

8dc0b7d

Base automatically changed from p/public-key-recovery-in-signature-verification to p/spending-limits-metamask-string September 6, 2022 00:16

AeonSw4n merged commit d0fb5c1 into p/spending-limits-metamask-string Sep 6, 2022

AeonSw4n deleted the p/unlimited-spending-limit branch September 6, 2022 00:33

	// IsUnlimited field determines whether this derived key has no spending limit.
	// IsUnlimited field determines whether this derived key can perform any transaction on behalf of its owner and does not require a no spending limit.

Unlimited spending limit #384

Unlimited spending limit #384

Uh oh!

Conversation

AeonSw4n commented Jul 11, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lazynina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!