[bisq-network/bisq] Provide more offer & contract detail to CLI (#5357)

[sqrrm]

@sqrrm commented on this pull request.



> @@ -181,4 +190,32 @@ private static String formatTradeData(String format,
             t.getOffer().getBaseCurrencyCode().equals("BTC")
                     ? formatOfferVolume(t.getOffer().getVolume())
                     : formatSatoshis(t.getTradeAmountAsLong());
+
+    private static final BiFunction<TradeInfo, Boolean, String> bsqReceiveAddress = (t, showBsqBuyerAddress) -> {
+        if (showBsqBuyerAddress) {
+            ContractInfo contract = t.getContract();
+            boolean isBuyerMakerAndSellerTaker = contract.getIsBuyerMakerAndSellerTaker();
+            return isBuyerMakerAndSellerTaker  // (is BTC buyer / maker)
+                    ? contract.getTakerPaymentAccountPayload().getAddress()
+                    : contract.getMakerPaymentAccountPayload().getAddress();
+        } else {
+            return "";
+        }
+    };
+
+    private static boolean shouldShowBqsBuyerAddress(TradeInfo tradeInfo, boolean isTaker) {

Spelling `...Bqs...`

> @@ -305,6 +312,41 @@ void sendBtc(String address,
         }
     }
 
+    boolean verifyBsqSentToAddress(String address, String amount) {

There are some issues with this as two trades could have the same amounts, or someone sends the BSQ as two transactions adding up to the total amount. I think this is good enough for now, but it's not fool proof. The problem is the same when trading manually though, just something to keep in mind.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/5357#pullrequestreview-627023763
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210402/64452d98/attachment.htm>