Should v5 Signer API use micro-starknet's Signature type directly?

[yoga-braavos]

Currently the return value from several Signer interface APIs are defined as Signature, which is:
declare type Signature = _noble_curves_abstract_weierstrass.SignatureType;

I would suggest that the Signer interface will be generic and not coupled to a specific library's types (i.e. micro-starknet) - As an interface it should support other use-cases that might not use or even be incompatible with micro-starknet.

I encountered this issue when migrating Braavos's code-base to starknet.js v5 and indeed our use case is incompatible with the current Signature type.

[dhruvkelawala]

Yes, it was bad on my side to use the Signature Class from micro-starknet. I had a discussion with @janek26 few months ago, where we faced the same issue as you. We should keep the type of Signature similar to starknet v4. i.e

type Signature = string[]

[tabaktoni]

If you do your own implementation and use only the interface this should be fine, but if you use the default implementation then we need a way to skip the usage of signatureToHexArray & signatureToDecimalArray?

[tabaktoni]

@yoga-braavos @dhruvkelawala @janek26 Please take a look at this resolution. After playing around I manage to make this solution based on default implementation and to allow custom implementation without changing the interface.
#570

[ivpavici]

#570 merged, so I'll close this discussion! thanks to all!