Clarify responsibilities between the front and the API

[balessan]

More of a final specification ticket, than really a bug. There are a few topics not covered in the initial specification and covered in the current code using either environment variables or static keys, which does not make sense:

• User authentication
• Signature computation
• Transaction allowance validation
• Contracts information retrieval:
  • especially the ABI, used to generate the allowance

I initially thought about integrating mutiple new packages/API to handle those, like:

• https://github.com/wassafshahzad/django-metamask-auth#metamask-authentication for the user authentication part
• https://docs.etherscan.io/api-endpoints/ or https://github.com/pcko1/etherscan-python to retrieve proper informations about the actual contracts

But I am actually wondering if those process are the DBS or the client application reponsibility ?

Need additional inputs here.

[jamiehewitt15]

The signatures will be handled by the client side of the application. @EnzoVezzaro is working on the UI at the moment, it should be ready soon

[EnzoVezzaro]

I'm working on the dbs.js integration right now into the UI lib. I'll keep you posted.

[balessan]

I'm working on the dbs.js integration right now into the UI lib. I'll keep you posted.

Ok. So just to be clear, can I consider that the client will manage:

• User authentication
• Signature computation
• Transaction allowance validation
• Contracts information retrieval:
  • Especially the ABI, used to generate the allowance

Because if so, I can simplify the code once more and consider to be just a proxy.

[jamiehewitt15]

Yeah @balessan this repo is really just meant to be a proxy. It doesn't need to handle:

• User authentication
• Signature computation
• Transaction allowance validation
• Contracts information retrieval

I suggest that we close this issue and create separate issues to remove any unnecessary code that's still present.

[balessan]

Let's close it then.

[jamiehewitt15]

Thanks @balessan, can you create an issue for simplifying the code like you mentioned above, removing any unnecessary code

[balessan]

Thanks @balessan, can you create an issue for simplifying the code like you mentioned above, removing any unnecessary code

Opened as #80 to double-check that nothing unusual remains.