[ABW-3230] Use Wallet Interaction models from Sargon #1171
Conversation
| public static func walletInteractionID(for interaction: DappInteractionClient.WalletInteraction) -> Self { | ||
| "\(interaction.rawValue)_\(UUID().uuidString)" | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public var isWalletAccountDepositSettingsInteraction: Bool { | ||
| rawValue.hasPrefix(DappInteractionClient.WalletInteraction.accountDepositSettings.rawValue) | ||
| hasPrefix(DappInteractionClient.WalletInteraction.accountDepositSettings.rawValue) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We are now using WalletInteractionId, which is a typealias of UUID. Then, how can it contain a prefix that we manually set on line 29?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
WalletInteractionId is a typealias of String for now. Wrote an explanation here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, I was navigating to an oudated typealias.
Thanks
RadixWallet/Clients/DappInteractionClient/DappInteractionClient+Live.swift
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -36,14 +36,14 @@ extension ROLAClient { | |||
| return Self( | |||
| performDappDefinitionVerification: { metadata async throws in | |||
| _ = try await onLedgerEntitiesClient.getDappMetadata( | |||
| metadata.dAppDefinitionAddress, | |||
| validatingWebsite: metadata.origin.url | |||
| metadata.dappDefinitionAddress, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mm we are using dAppXYZ all over the app, was this approved on Sargon?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The variable name in Rust is dapp_definition_address, so it's exported as dappDefinitionAddress. Do you know any trick to have it like dAppDefinitionAddress? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the one hand dApp is the correct style, on the other hand we did decide to generally write it Dapp, while would lead to dapp... for instances/enum cases, and Dapp... for types. But as you point out, we only seem to follow this convention for types.
| let requested: P2P.Dapp.Request.PersonaDataRequestItem | ||
| let responseValidation: P2P.Dapp.Request.RequestValidation | ||
| let requested: DappToWalletInteractionPersonaDataRequestItem | ||
| let responseValidation: DappToWalletInteraction.RequestValidation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be in Sargon?
…t+Live.swift Co-authored-by: matiasbzurovski <164921079+matiasbzurovski@users.noreply.github.com>
| @@ -15,14 +15,24 @@ extension P2P { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public enum Request: Sendable, Hashable, Equatable, Decodable { | |||
| case dapp(P2P.Dapp.RequestUnvalidated) | |||
| case dapp(DappToWalletInteractionUnvalidated) | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| extension P2P.RTCMessageFromPeer.Request { | |||
| public init(from decoder: Decoder) throws { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we actually need this to be generally Decodable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed Decodable
|
|
||
| private extension [PersonaData.Entry.Kind: [PersonaData.Entry]] { | ||
| func extract<F>(_ kind: PersonaData.Entry.Kind, as: F.Type = F.self) throws -> F? where F: PersonaDataEntryProtocol { | ||
| try self[kind]?.first.map { try $0.extract(as: F.self) } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we only need the first one? And if we do, perhaps the name should still reflect that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This functionality was not introduced in this PR, it was simply moved from another location. I suppose it is a matter of preference, and we can change it when we transition this to Sargon.
| @@ -640,7 +640,7 @@ extension DappInteractionFlow { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| func finishInteractionFlow(_ state: State) -> Effect<Action> { | |||
| guard let response = P2P.Dapp.Response.WalletInteractionSuccessResponse( | |||
| guard let response = WalletToDappInteractionSuccessResponse( | |||
| for: state.remoteInteraction, | |||
| with: state.responseItems.values.compactMap(/State.AnyInteractionResponseItem.remote) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be done without using the reflection based CasePath?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, why? We do not intend to compare associated values
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because we want to avoid reflection if we can
| @@ -15,14 +15,24 @@ extension P2P { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public enum Request: Sendable, Hashable, Equatable, Decodable { | |||
| case dapp(P2P.Dapp.RequestUnvalidated) | |||
| case dapp(DappToWalletInteractionUnvalidated) | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| extension P2P.RTCMessageFromPeer.Request { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Small improvement maybe - we could remove the Codable conformance from Request, and then decode the DappToWalletInteractionUnvalidated separately and embed it in the request afterwards.
danvleju-rdx
deleted the
ABW-3230-use-wallet-interaction-models-from-sargon
branch
Jira ticket: ABW-3230
Description
This PR replaces the Wallet Interaction models with those from Sargon without altering the existing functionality.