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

[jimmyneutront]

@jimmyneutront 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 believe we may have had a miscommunication: the only code I am asking to be reviewed is in the one file I changed in this PR. All the other code that enables the functionality that I described in the long comment above is in a private repository, and I don't plan on ever submitting a pull request for it. I am highly confident that this PR will have no negative effects whatsoever, and that it will allow me to bring much more affordable sell offers to Bisq.

Again, I sincerely apologize that I was not initially as clear as I should have been, and I am more than happy to amend my commit with a better comment and answer any questions whatsoever to expedite and facilitate the review process.

Since you do not have the time to review this change, do I need to request a review from another developer myself, or will another one be assigned to this PR?

-- 
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_r671786544
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20210717/d510126b/attachment-0001.htm>