-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 304
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
additional information for sign
when returning false
#1588
Comments
Hey, so from what I understand . The problem we are trying to solve is explaining why the transaction has not been signed (completely) which means the signing is done but the PSBT is not finalised yet. If I am understanding it right, it does make sense to add the potential reasons for this. Although I am also unaware about any prior discussion on this. |
@reez can I get assigned to this issue? I would like to work on it. |
@A-y-ush I don't seem to have access on this specific repo to assign this to anyone, I think this is a good item for me to mention on this weeks Lib Dev Team Call to check in on other folks thoughts on how they'd like to proceed as well as get it assigned to you, thanks for the feedback and volunteering to take this on! |
@A-y-ush you've been assigned now, this is a good research topic, and may not make it into the final beta release or anything, but would love to see what you come up with as a possible solution, thanks! |
Describe the enhancement
I'm wondering if anyone has potentially thought of any alternatives to the return type than what currently exists for sign
Result<bool, SignerError>
Use case
I'm specifically thinking about a client app signing a transaction and getting
bool
offalse
back without additional information of whysign
returnedfalse
.Maybe they were expecting it to return
false
but maybe not; that client app may expect successfulsign
ing, not receivetrue
orSignerError
back, but get backfalse
instead without extra context, on what could be considered an imporant operation for their app.Additional context
Just looking for feedback/thoughts if there has been conversation about this historically/presently, and any possible thoughts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: