The only thing we were doing with it was passing it through to Rust and parsing it (panicking if parsing failed). The actual address is fetched from the UTXO itself, and the Rust code was not doing anything to ensure the two matched. Given that there seem to be bugs upstream in the address data, we now just ignore it.
Author
[x] Self-review your own code in GitHub's web interface[^1]
[^1]: Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs.
[^2]: While we aim for automated testing of the SDK, some aspects require manual testing. If you had to manually test
something during development of this pull request, write those steps down.
[^3]: _While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed. Code coverage can be generated with: ./gradlew check for Kotlin modules and ./gradlew connectedCheck -PIS_ANDROID_INSTRUMENTATION_TEST_COVERAGE_ENABLED=true for Android modules._
[^4]: Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit.
[^5]: In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass.
[^6]: While the CI server runs the demo app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the demo app are
more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data. Perform this step last, after verifying the code changes are safe to run locally.
The only thing we were doing with it was passing it through to Rust and parsing it (panicking if parsing failed). The actual address is fetched from the UTXO itself, and the Rust code was not doing anything to ensure the two matched. Given that there seem to be bugs upstream in the address data, we now just ignore it.
Author
Reviewer
[^1]: Code often looks different when reviewing the diff in a browser, making it easier to spot potential bugs. [^2]: While we aim for automated testing of the SDK, some aspects require manual testing. If you had to manually test something during development of this pull request, write those steps down. [^3]: _While we are not looking for perfect coverage, the tool can point out potential cases that have been missed. Code coverage can be generated with:
./gradlew checkfor Kotlin modules and./gradlew connectedCheck -PIS_ANDROID_INSTRUMENTATION_TEST_COVERAGE_ENABLED=truefor Android modules._ [^4]: Having your code up to date and squashed will make it easier for others to review. Use best judgement when squashing commits, as some changes (such as refactoring) might be easier to review as a separate commit. [^5]: In addition to a first pass using the code review guidelines, do a second pass using your best judgement and experience which may identify additional questions or comments. Research shows that code review is most effective when done in multiple passes, where reviewers look for different things through each pass. [^6]: While the CI server runs the demo app to look for build failures or crashes, humans running the demo app are more likely to notice unexpected log messages, UI inconsistencies, or bad output data. Perform this step last, after verifying the code changes are safe to run locally.