[bisq-network/bisq] Improve Validation of Deposit Inputs (#5618)

[chimp1984]

@chimp1984 commented on this pull request.



> @@ -356,23 +356,46 @@ public static void validatePayoutTxInput(Transaction depositTx,
     }
 
     public static void validateDepositInputs(Trade trade) throws InvalidTxException {
-        // assumption: deposit tx always has 2 inputs, the maker and taker
-        if (trade == null || trade.getDepositTx() == null || trade.getDepositTx().getInputs().size() != 2) {
-            throw new InvalidTxException("Deposit transaction is null or has unexpected input count");
+        /*
+         * deposit tx usually has 2 inputs, the maker and taker

I welcome your initiative, but I dislike that you have not been open and clear initially. The short comment you added did not at all point out the real intention and motivation.
I consider that a trade protocol change, even it touches only the fee tx and preparation part. I have not read now the whole post, would take me more time... But I suspect that there might be issues with the maker fee payments. 
In any case such a change require very critical review and you should have made it much more clear what it is about.

-- 
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/5618#discussion_r668258100
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210712/e6c4ee73/attachment.htm>