ERC-20 token transaction list #2659
Conversation
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
53d050a to
55c0f9f
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/eth-support
branch
from
4d6c3fa to
29e29d0
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
2 times, most recently
from
044bbfb to
d70617c
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
d70617c to
73bf62b
Compare
|
|
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
2 times, most recently
from
150539e to
ac1c1fe
Compare
1 similar comment
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
ac1c1fe to
d3714c0
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cb97e51 to
0ca9bfd
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
0ca9bfd to
9d17043
Compare
1 similar comment
|
Allow token transaction amount is shown without decimal shifting. |
|
|
||
| regularTransactions = responses | ||
| .flat() | ||
| .filter(({ tx }) => +tx.amount > 0); // Remove transaction with 0 value (e.g.: fee payments) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we agreed to only remove transactions that are duplicate (only if another (actual) transaction with the same hash exists) and not filter them by whether they have 0 value.
@CedrikNikita @peronczyk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, you are right. The hash suppose to be the same for two equal transactions that we got from different requests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. And also we had quite extensive conversation with the team members and Sotiris that for the ERC-20 tokens we need to hide transactions that are for the fee payments (0 value).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The goal was to exclude the duplicates from txlist request by rewriting them with information from tokentx for the transactions with the same hash.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exactly, we should hide fee payments transactions. But filtering out all 0 value transactions removes more than just the fee payment transactions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fee payments are not duplicates - those are regular transactions with separate transaction hashes and value equal to "0". Here's example object that describes such a transaction:
I'm not sure what you are @CedrikNikita referring to by tokentx. Can you explain?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For this list I propose to filter also out all fee payments transactions (what are the other 0 values?). We need to be able to show such information in origin transaction details page and/or aescan.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I changed the logic so only when loading all account transactions the duplicated items with amount 0 are removed. Can you guys see if its OK now in your opinion?
@CedrikNikita @martinkaintas
|
I am ok |
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
861979a to
aa07c61
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
aa07c61 to
62fef54
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
62fef54 to
b515043
Compare
|
Token transactions are not being loaded, if transactions was long time ago. |
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
b515043 to
e39956a
Compare
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
e39956a to
88399b7
Compare
Yes, I also don't like this. But this was agreed with Sotiris. We were choosing between the |
peronczyk
force-pushed
the
feat/erc-20-token-transaction-list
branch
from
88399b7 to
abb67ad
Compare
Closes: #2590