Address verification enhancement #724
Conversation
|
User @toolsopen, please sign the CLA here. |
|
@toolsopen Thanks for the PR. If you could give a description as to why you think this is a verification enhancement, and also some tests to support it. |
| @@ -56,7 +57,9 @@ async function main() { | |||
| types: TYPES ? (require(TYPES) as RegistryTypes) : undefined, | |||
| /* eslint-enable @typescript-eslint/no-var-requires */ | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| if(api.registry.chainSS58 != undefined){ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So this logic would actually have to be contained inside of the middleware. It would have to check if the requests are grabbing information from a past block that has a historic runtime OR if there is no at query parameter attached then to just use the current api's registry. This also stops us from mutating any data in polkadot-js through { defaults }, and potentially having other files import that mutated dep.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
chainss58 doesn't change so I don't think we need to worry about historical queries
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(not sure if I am understanding correctly your comment tho)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea I see what you're saying. Yea if chainss58 never changes one could use the current registry.
| const [isValid] = checkAddressChecksum(u8Address); | ||
|
|
||
| const [isValid, , , ss58Decoded] = checkAddressChecksum(u8Address); | ||
| if (ss58Decoded !== prefix) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMO its a feature not a bug that we will accept any address format. If we want this level of address validation we can add an address validation endpoint
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, my purpose is just to verify the address
No description provided.