Open AArnott opened 10 months ago
On matrix, altum suggested that the to_address
is dropped on save and replaced with the value from recipient_ua
. This is information lossy. It is not reconstructed on deserialization, and I'd argue cannot be, since the receiver that had previously been chosen cannot be reliably guessed from the many receivers in the UA later on, when perhaps zingolib supports more receiver types than it did when creating that transaction.
Why is zingolib providing the compound UA in the
to_address
field, leaving therecipient_ua
field empty for a transaction'soutgoing_tx_data
? I expected theto_address
to always be the literal address used in the transaction, and if Zingolib is going to preserve the UA's other receivers in the change memo, that that would only appear underrecipient_ua