Closed nahuely closed 5 years ago
@nahuely you're right that there's no txHash
because the transaction is never broadcasted. What do you think of the proposed solution below where in the absence of a txHash
, we use the stackId
as the key. This way there's a history of which transactions are rejected.
@joshma91 i think this is a posible solution, but i feel that we are loosing consistency in doing this, i mean, we are using the index of the transactionStack as a property in the transaction object(where there is no value), and when there is a value in the transactionStack when are using it as a key in the transaction, so i dont know if what im saying makes sense? cheers
@nahuely yea I totally get it. The transactionStack
value is normally the key in transactions
, and then in my case, the transactionStack
key becomes the key in transactions
which is inconsistent. I can't really think of a clean solution to this without re-engineering it so that a txHash
is broadcast before Metamask approval.
Not being able to know if the transaction has been rejected is a big problem. I had to hack my way to change the state of my views when a transaction has been rejected, and it's really dirty.
As a first version of the fix, having the stackId in the transactions
object would be much cleaner than having undefined
. I agree it's inconsistent, but that's a first step.
Note: this is related to https://github.com/trufflesuite/drizzle/issues/86
How about we always write a value (e.g. temp_SOME_UNIQUE_VALUE
) to transactionStack
array before any tx has been broadcasted?
Once broadcasted, overwrite that temp value in the transactionStack
. If there's an error that results in no tx being broadcasted (e.g. rejecting a tx), use the temp value as the key in transactions
object and we can still look it up using that unique temp value.
Keeps the consistency of the values in transactionStack
mapping to the keys in the transaction
obj.
if you click on reject transaction in metamask a undefined key is added in the transaction object, its not a critical bug i think, but at first glance its weird, im running the latest version of metamask extension and the latest version of drizzle 1.2.4, cheers
pd: i think is because there is not txhash , because the transaction hasnt even started