Skip to content

[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52

Open
Open
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
Assignees
aldims
Labels
enhancementNew feature or request

Description

@tkoen93
tkoen93
opened on Aug 21, 2019

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:

struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.

When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).

The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.

Describe the solution you'd like
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.

Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.

struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

Describe alternatives you've considered
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.

Additional context
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

enhancementNew feature or request

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult · Issue #52 · CREDITSCOM/node · GitHub
    Skip to content
    [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52
    Open
    Open
    [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
    Assignees
    aldims
    Labels
    enhancementNew feature or request
    Description
    @tkoen93
    tkoen93
    opened on Aug 21, 2019
    Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
    
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:
    struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

    The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.
    When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
    
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).
    The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.
    Describe the solution you'd like
    
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.
    Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.
    struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

    struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

    struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

    Describe alternatives you've considered
    
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.
    Additional context
    
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    Labels
    enhancementNew feature or request
    Type
    No type
    Projects
    No projects
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult · Issue #52 · CREDITSCOM/node · GitHub
      Skip to content
      [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52
      Open
      Open
      [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
      Assignees
      aldims
      Labels
      enhancementNew feature or request
      Description
      @tkoen93
      tkoen93
      opened on Aug 21, 2019
      Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
      
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:
      struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

      The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.
      When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
      
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).
      The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.
      Describe the solution you'd like
      
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.
      Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.
      struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

      struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

      struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

      Describe alternatives you've considered
      
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.
      Additional context
      
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      Labels
      enhancementNew feature or request
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      No projects
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult · Issue #52 · CREDITSCOM/node · GitHub
        Skip to content
        [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52
        Open
        Open
        [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
        Assignees
        aldims
        Labels
        enhancementNew feature or request
        Description
        @tkoen93
        tkoen93
        opened on Aug 21, 2019
        Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
        
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:
        struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

        The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.
        When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
        
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).
        The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.
        Describe the solution you'd like
        
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.
        Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.
        struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

        struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

        struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

        Describe alternatives you've considered
        
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.
        Additional context
        
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        Labels
        enhancementNew feature or request
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult · Issue #52 · CREDITSCOM/node · GitHub
          Skip to content
          [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52
          Open
          Open
          [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
          Assignees
          aldims
          Labels
          enhancementNew feature or request
          Description
          @tkoen93
          tkoen93
          opened on Aug 21, 2019
          Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
          
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:
          struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

          The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.
          When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
          
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).
          The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.
          Describe the solution you'd like
          
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.
          Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.
          struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

          struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

          struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

          Describe alternatives you've considered
          
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.
          Additional context
          
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          Labels
          enhancementNew feature or request
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          No projects
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult · Issue #52 · CREDITSCOM/node · GitHub
            Skip to content
            [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52
            Open
            Open
            [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
            Assignees
            aldims
            Labels
            enhancementNew feature or request
            Description
            @tkoen93
            tkoen93
            opened on Aug 21, 2019
            Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
            
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:
            struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

            The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.
            When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
            
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).
            The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.
            Describe the solution you'd like
            
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.
            Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.
            struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

            struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

            struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

            Describe alternatives you've considered
            
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.
            Additional context
            
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            Labels
            enhancementNew feature or request
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult · Issue #52 · CREDITSCOM/node · GitHub
              Skip to content
              [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52
              Open
              Open
              [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
              Assignees
              aldims
              Labels
              enhancementNew feature or request
              Description
              @tkoen93
              tkoen93
              opened on Aug 21, 2019
              Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
              
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:
              struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

              The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.
              When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
              
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).
              The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.
              Describe the solution you'd like
              
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.
              Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.
              struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

              struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

              struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

              Describe alternatives you've considered
              
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.
              Additional context
              
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              Labels
              enhancementNew feature or request
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              No projects
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions
                
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
[Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult · Issue #52 · CREDITSCOM/node · GitHub
                Skip to content
                [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult #52
                Open
                Open
                [Feature request] Change of TransactionFlowResult#52
                Assignees
                aldims
                Labels
                enhancementNew feature or request
                Description
                @tkoen93
                tkoen93
                opened on Aug 21, 2019
                Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
                
Currently the result when sending a transaction via the api (using TransactionFlow) the result is given as TransactionFlowResult and contains the following information:
                struct TransactionFlowResult
{
1: general.APIResponse status
2: optional general.Variant smart_contract_result //general.Variant
3: i32 roundNum
}

                The only useful information in this result at this moment is to know if the transaction is a success, of which we aren't even sure that it even is a success.
                When a transaction is sent to a node using the TransactionFlow method, the node sets the current roundNum at that point as a result, while the transaction has not been processed yet.
                
After that a transaction is checked using the checkTransaction function, which is a check on the node the transaction was sent to. It checks for some basic things, such as sufficient balance, enough fee and a correct signature. When the transaction passes these tests, the node checks if there is anything related to smartcontracts in the transaction. When there is no smart contract data inside the transaction, it passes the transaction to dumb_transaction_flow (https://github.com/CREDITSCOM/node/blob/dev/api/src/apihandler.cpp line 842/843).
                The dumb_transaction_flow sends the transaction into the network and immediately returns a success, containing both the 'success' message and the signature in hexadecimals. But is it really a success? If so, I'd like to see some more and accurate information regarding the transaction.
                Describe the solution you'd like
                
I'd like to see a change in the TransactionFlowResult. First of all I should receive the result after the transaction has succesfully been processed in the network and not just on a single node as there is a small chance it fail due to whatever reason.
                Next to that I'd like to see the transaction ID returned as well. It might be an idea to use the SealedTransaction for that.
                struct SealedTransaction {
1: TransactionId id
2: Transaction trxn
}

                struct TransactionId
{
1: i64 poolSeq
2: i32 index
}

                struct Transaction
{
1: TransactionInnerId id
2: general.Address source
3: general.Address target
4: general.Amount amount
5: general.Amount balance
6: Currency currency
7: binary signature
8: optional SmartContractInvocation smartContract
9: AmountCommission fee
10: Time timeCreation
11: optional binary userFields
12: TransactionType type
13: optional SmartTransInfo smartInfo
14: optional list<ExtraFee> extraFee
15: i64 poolNumber
16: optional list<general.Address> usedContracts
}

                Describe alternatives you've considered
                
It's possible to retrieve more information about the transaction after it's processed succesfully while retreiving transactions using TransactionsGet, but that takes time and creates additional API calls to a node.
                Additional context
                
In my opinion this change is good for any developer that uses/want to use the Credits blockchain. Not just developers, but also exchanges can easily display transaction ids this way, making sure deposits/withdrawals are a success.
                Metadata
                Metadata
                Assignees
                Labels
                enhancementNew feature or request
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions