[account] Improve account experience #125
Open
+175
−25
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
1. Change authkey input to accounts to address 2. Allow for extracting private key from accounts
gregnazario
force-pushed
the
improve-account-behavior
branch
from
257e6c3 to
60b12a7
Compare
JohnChangUK
reviewed
Feb 20, 2025
| @@ -60,6 +60,42 @@ func NewSecp256k1Account() (*Account, error) { | |||
| return NewAccountFromSigner(signer) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // ExtractMessageSigner extracts the message signer from the account for | |||
JohnChangUK
reviewed
Feb 20, 2025
| assert.NoError(t, err) | ||
| expectedEd25519String, err := ed25519PrivateKey.ToAIP80() | ||
| assert.NoError(t, err) | ||
| assert.Equal(t, expectedEd25519String, ed25519KeyString) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add another test case to verify AIP 80
assert.True(t, strings.HasPrefix(ed25519KeyString, "ed25519-priv-"))
JohnChangUK
approved these changes
Feb 20, 2025
| @@ -60,6 +60,42 @@ func NewSecp256k1Account() (*Account, error) { | |||
| return NewAccountFromSigner(signer) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // ExtractMessageSigner extracts the message signer from the account for | |||
| func (account *Account) ExtractMessageSigner() (crypto.MessageSigner, bool) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it worth returning error here as opposed to bool for consistency?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the same consistency topic, do we need the Extract prefix in these new funcs? Other places in the sdk we use noun phrases for these derived values/attributes
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // ExtractPrivateKeyString extracts the private key string | ||
| func (account *Account) ExtractPrivateKeyString() (string, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it worth exposing the PrivateKey as a byte slice of the raw bytes instead of string? Alternatively, update the doc to indicate that the func returns a AIP-80 compliant string
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Test Plan
Added 100% possible coverage on types/ folder
Related Links