fix(keychain): fix private key missing error #5277
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #5277 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 85.91% 86.00% +0.09%
==========================================
Files 745 745
Lines 30487 30498 +11
Branches 5288 5289 +1
==========================================
+ Hits 26192 26229 +37
+ Misses 4059 4037 -22
+ Partials 236 232 -4
... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
| @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ export function* getViemWallet(chain: Chain) { | |||
| if (!account) { | |||
| throw new Error(`Account ${walletAddress} not found in Keychain`) | |||
| } | |||
| const password = yield* call(getPasswordSaga, walletAddress, false, true) | |||
| const password = yield* call(getPasswordSaga, walletAddress, true, false) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is the fix for new users. everything else is fixing the bad leftover state for existing users.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could be in a follow up, but should we change the arg type of getPasswordSaga to an object, so its explicit on what booleans are set?. E.g.,
const password = yield* call(getPasswordSaga, { account: walletAddress, withVerification: true })There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes absolutely (although i'd prefer to refactor that function to remove these arguments / code paths altogether, they should be in separate functions that are called predictably) but wanted to keep this fix isolated here
kathaypacific
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great! Thanks so much for digging all the details. 
🚀
Like Satish mentionned, I'm sure we all have a few ideas to make this part of the code base more robust given its importance.
Silas was asking if we should maybe do a small post mortem to learn from this and agree on next steps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💫 Amazing job!
I agree that we have to refactor this to make it as dumb as possible, avoiding side effects and obscure params like this withVerification one. I guess part of the problem is not only the form in which it's supplied to the function but the reason for its very existence.
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks
### Description As the title. I've done a detailed writeup [here](https://linear.app/valora/issue/RET-1067/error-while-swapping-private-key-not-found#comment-3729279a). ### Test plan As a user who knows their pincode, I should always be able to perform a transaction and see my recovery phrase. ### Related issues - Fixes RET-1067 ### Backwards compatibility Y ### Network scalability Y
### Description As the title. I've done a detailed writeup [here](https://linear.app/valora/issue/RET-1067/error-while-swapping-private-key-not-found#comment-3729279a). ### Test plan As a user who knows their pincode, I should always be able to perform a transaction and see my recovery phrase. ### Related issues - Fixes RET-1067 ### Backwards compatibility Y ### Network scalability Y
Description
As the title. I've done a detailed writeup here.
Test plan
As a user who knows their pincode, I should always be able to perform a transaction and see my recovery phrase.
Related issues
Backwards compatibility
Y
Network scalability
Y