feat: Basic support for H160 and H256 accounts.

[crystalin]

This is a basic support got H160 accounts (like in Moonbeam/Moonriver) substrate chains.
I suspect we could pass an argument to validateAddressMiddleware to decide which type to support instead of relying on the 0x prefix, but I'm not too familiar with the project.

What is your suggestion ?

[TarikGul]

@crystalin Thank you for the PR! I will give it a thorough review and response come Monday.

[emostov]

We need to update tests and make sure to have both success and failure tests for standard substrate addresses and H160.

[emostov]

thanks for the contribution - LGTM!

[dvdplm]

Seems like this could be done in a better way, but I could be wrong.

[crystalin]

@dvdplm , I tried to improve the logic, please have a look

[TarikGul]

LGTM, I will approve once the lint check is fixed (yarn lint --fix). Thanks again for the PR.

NOTE: I tested this myself against a moonriver node, and everything worked as expected.

[TarikGul]

@crystalin This will make it into the next Sidecar release v8.1.0. @dvdplm Once you approve the changes made in response to your suggestions I will get this updated into the next Sidecar release for either tonight or tomorrow morning.

[TarikGul]

This will make it into the next Sidecar release v8.1.0.

This was premature insight of mine.

So we actually had a quick conversation about moving forward with this PR. We are actually going to leave it out of the next release to give this a second audit, we believe there might be a better way to do this, but just need to double check some alternatives.

Moving forward with the 8.0.1 release and once this is merged we can always do another release.

[crystalin]

@TarikGul it is fine for us now, we are hosting our custom version at the moment

[dvdplm]

lgtm, thank you @crystalin for humoring me. :)

[emostov]

What is the status of this?

[TarikGul]

@emostov Im happy to get this merged in.

[TarikGul]

My main concern and delay was wondering if there was a better alternative to accepting a set of addresses within our middleware, but I think for now this is totally acceptable.

[emostov]

@TarikGul - yeah I wouldn't say I have a full picture of all the different address schemes, but from what I understand this solution should additionally except ethereum addresses on top of what we already except. If for some reason we found out accepting both is not desirable I suppose we could add some config option. Not sure what other ways we could do this?

[TarikGul]

@emostov Yea I agree with everything you said. I am going to do some last minute sanity checks, and if everything checks out again (which it should), I'll merge this tonight, and have it in tomorrow's release

[TarikGul]

Merging. @crystalin Thank you for the PR.