-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 396
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
Fix payment processor #310
Open
LEAD-Anoy74
wants to merge
1
commit into
UNOMP:master
Choose a base branch
from
LEAD-Anoy74:patch-1
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Whys this changed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That portion of code doesn't even make sense to exist anymore, since miners should be allowed to setup a longer .workername.
It's also broken, and doesn't even change the address to poolconfig pooladdrress.
Cheers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree partially with @LEAD-Anoy74 on the issue of the length should not even be checked.
The function is not meant to change the address at all... It is meant to check the address if it is valid and matches pool configuration.
Most pools accept WALLET.WORKER format and the workername can be any length (unless pool limits it)
What I would do is split the address / worker name and then do the length check after, or just rip it out alltogether.
Either use:
or use this:
I would personally modify the function and add more sanity / validation checks.
For example:
validateaddress
RPC call to check the address is validvalidateaddress
RPC call results to check the address is owned by the pool daemonThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The spacing of this is all over the place, but from a quick skim, the function can be kept the same by splitting the address before its passed into getProperAddress. The purpose of this function is as a sanity check to ensure that only a valid base58 bitcoin-type address is passed in and used from that point forward. This change would be breaking that check.