frontend: show all sell options #3337
Conversation
Before BTC Direct sell the only sell option was Bitcoin via
PocketBitcoin, which require SLIP24 and only supports Bitcoin.
If the firmware did not support SLIP24 the app displayed:
A firmware update is required to make use of this feature.
When an altcoin was selected the app would display:
An account must be BTC based to support payment requests.
This commit changes to show all sell options and optionally
show an warning after the options:
A firmware update is required to use all options.
This requires a change in the backend that the Pocket options is
only returned if the firmware supports SLIP24.
| @@ -875,7 +875,7 @@ func (handlers *Handlers) getHasPaymentRequest(r *http.Request) (interface{}, er | |||
| if !ok { | |||
| return response{ | |||
| Success: false, | |||
| ErrorMessage: "An account must be BTC based to support payment requests.", | |||
| ErrorMessage: "", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Temporary removed this error, but instead the app should probably just return BTC Direct as only sell option (now that it supports coins other than Bitcoin).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should deal with this logic somewhere else; if we use payment requests only for BTC with Pocket, we shouldn't change this logic (which is what I was doing in my other PR that is now closed). If we are not using payment requests for BTC Direct, we should just skip the call to has-payment-request when selling with them. Unless I'm mistaken there's not much we can do in the backend here, as the backend already returns the correct deals, it's just that the frontend stops when the call to has-payment-request fails.
cc @Beerosagos on the disucssion we had earlier
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unless I'm mistaken there's not much we can do in the backend here, as the backend already returns the correct deals, i
oh, I was somehow under the assumption that the backend doesn't retrurn the correct deals. I'll check again…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@thisconnect let me know if you need any help checking. By looking at the code, I think that if we were to simply ignore the call to has-payment-request, the backend should return the correct deals, but I'm happy to double-check it.
This also would impact the changes we want for the old-FW error, so I'm gonna put an hold on that as well until we make sure :)
No description provided.