Smooth some UX edges in the SPV API #452
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…web-node into emily/spv-chainid-format
mightybyte
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2019
larskuhtz
reviewed
Sep 19, 2019
larskuhtz
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Currently, we take a chainweb chain id as a parameter to the SPV api, but this creates some unsatisfying UX, where the user submits a Pact chain id as a parameter to a cross-chain transfer, but then has to remember to switch from pact to chainweb chain id's (raw word32's) for the SPV api in the pact service. This is bad UX. This PR makes it Pact Chain Ids the whole way so that the user only ever specifies pact types as parameters to the pact service.