feat(checkout): Migrate to v2 sanction API and add token info #2670
Conversation
|
View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit d689bb3
☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at |
fang377
changed the title
| const requestPayload: SanctionsCheckV2RequestItem[] = addresses.map((address) => { | ||
| const item: SanctionsCheckV2RequestItem = { address }; | ||
|
|
||
| // Add token and amount data if available |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In what scenario would the token and amount data not be available?
Should we still send through a request to the sanctions service without this information?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yea the request should still be sent even when token and amount data are not available,
In what scenario would the token and amount data not be available?
like the sale context (where token/amount are determined later in the flow), early-stage widget initialization (before user selects token/amount), and generic address validation (where we just want to check if an address is sanctioned regardless of specific transaction details) etc
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| // Add token and amount data | ||
| const tokenInfo = tokenData.find((t) => t.address.toLowerCase() === address.toLowerCase()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like if tokenInfo can't be found, we'll send
token_addr: '',
amount: '0',
to the API.. what will happen? Will this cause an error for the user?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the token_addr and amount are not used in determining the risk level actually so there should not be any impact, but let me update the logic here to only call api when token info's valid
| export const fetchRiskAssessment = async ( | ||
| addresses: string[], | ||
| config: CheckoutConfiguration, | ||
| tokenData: Array<{ address: string; tokenAddr: string; amount: string }>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is address here the same as the address is addresses - can we remove one of them so that the caller doesn't have the provide the same info twice?
| checkout.config, | ||
| [{ | ||
| address: toAddress, | ||
| tokenAddr: selectedToken?.address || '', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we be checking that a token has been selected before calling this - rather than going ahead with the empty string?
packages/checkout/widgets-lib/src/widgets/add-tokens/views/AddTokens.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/checkout/widgets-lib/src/widgets/add-tokens/views/AddTokens.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/checkout/widgets-lib/src/widgets/add-tokens/views/AddTokens.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/checkout/widgets-lib/src/widgets/bridge/components/BridgeForm.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/checkout/widgets-lib/src/widgets/bridge/components/BridgeForm.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
packages/checkout/widgets-lib/src/widgets/sale/context/SaleContextProvider.tsx
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…Tokens.tsx Co-authored-by: Keith Broughton <[email protected]>
…Tokens.tsx Co-authored-by: Keith Broughton <[email protected]>
…Tokens.tsx Co-authored-by: Keith Broughton <[email protected]>
…idgeForm.tsx Co-authored-by: Keith Broughton <[email protected]>
…idgeForm.tsx Co-authored-by: Keith Broughton <[email protected]>
…textProvider.tsx Co-authored-by: Keith Broughton <[email protected]>
Hi👋, please ensure the PR title follows the below standards:
type(scope): message. For example:feat(passport): my new feature!after thetype(scope), for examplefeat(passport)!: my new breaking featureSummary
What Changed
Key Updates (under checkout)
Backward Compatibility: yes -> All existing code continues to work
Detail and impact of the change
Added
Changed
Deprecated
Removed
Fixed
Security
Anything else worth calling out?