fix: performing 2nd swap not working #986
Closed
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
The test added here is copying the first few steps of the previous test, "alice swaps bob 10 A for 1 B". For some reason, the second time you simulate this transaction, it is calculating that no non-invoker signing is needed! Haven't figured out why yet. Note that this is an order-dependent test. The new one only functions as expected because mocha runs the tests in the same order every time.
Adds a toXDR and fromXDR for AssembledTransaction class. Also adds a txFromXDR to the Client class. Changes the swap test to use this flow. Limitations: If you use the XDR multi-auth flow, you must re-simulate before the final `signAndSend` call. This is due to the fact that we can't serialize the XDR of the transaction envelope with the results of the simulation. If we want to do this, we would need to add an `AssembledTransaction` type to XDR in `stellar-base`. --------- Co-authored-by: George <[email protected]>
The new test added here shows that you can edit a transaction with `tx.raw = cloneFrom(tx.build)` and that the `tx.simulationData` will be updated correctly.
Co-authored-by: Chad Ostrowski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: blaineheffron <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: George <[email protected]>
…ion` (stellar#992) * add auto restore functionality for contract client * extract getAccount to utils * add changelog entry for auto restore functionality Co-authored-by: Chad Ostrowski <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: blaineheffron <[email protected]>
* Upgrade dev dependencies * Upgrade stellar-base to latest version
|
Fixed by increasing the starting token balance. The issue was that when the swap was constructed, it would simulate and the simulation would fail so the auth entries never got added to the transaction. Simulation would fail when it tried to simulate a transfer of tokens but the balance was not enough. |
|
ohhhh 🤦🏼 ok, good to know that there's no order dependency. Should have checked for a simulation error right away. |
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.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The test added here is copying the first few steps of the previous test, "alice swaps bob 10 A for 1 B". For some reason, the second time you simulate this transaction, it is calculating that no non-invoker signing is needed! Haven't figured out why yet.
Note that this is an order-dependent test. The new one only functions as expected because mocha runs the tests in the same order every time.
See the failing test here on CI: