Details
Tested implicitly by subsequent diffs.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rCOMM Comm
- Lint
No Lint Coverage - Unit
No Test Coverage
Event Timeline
lib/types/siwe-types.js | ||
---|---|---|
14 | Going to remove this address field in a subsequent diff. There's no reason for it and it's redundant with the address field in the message. It's also useless because whereas the address field in the message is "signed," the address field in SIWEAuthRequest is not. |
Regarding the LogInActionSource, I believe we added those to log_in for @kamil's work on the Privacy Policy stuff. While I'm not sure it's needed anymore for that work, it might be useful to know what part of the UI a SIWE request is coming from in the future. That said, we only have one place in the UI for a SIWE request today, and we won't be able to build any sort of "auto-log-in" feature for SIWE... so maybe there's no point to tracking the source, since there will only be one? Probably something we can come back to later.
lib/types/siwe-types.js | ||
---|---|---|
14 | Confused why introduce it now if you're gonna remove it later |
lib/types/siwe-types.js | ||
---|---|---|
14 | I didn't realize until later in the stack... I just included it to match what was already there in the codebase/Derek's diffs. I could rebase, but figured we want to go as quick as possible so lazily adding a diff later seemed better? |
lib/types/siwe-types.js | ||
---|---|---|
14 | Not trying to slow you down but it should only take 5min to rebase to an earlier commit, fix it up, and run arc diff |
Specifically regarding "Probably something we can come back to later," is this something we should create a Linear task for? Or is it something that'll come up naturally if/when we hypothetically have multiple places in UI for SIWE request?
Yes, it was added to the initial version of Policy stuff, but we current logic when we use modal not auth forms so the source is not needed anymore.
From my perspective, accepting the policies thing was the only reason for passing the login source to the keyserver, so probably it'll come up naturally. Still, maybe there is a different need I'm not familiar with.
Thanks for asking, don't think we need a Linear task for this right now since it's entirely hypothetical. My commentary above was probably unnecessary