Asset validation override in coin extensions


#1

I recently started looking into bisq at the request of the team for a coin I’m affiliated with. Being new here; I’m not really sure what the acceptable procedure is for if you stumble across a problem with other coins. Should I just submit an issue for those that are responsible for that coin to fix, or go ahead and fix it and push the updates, or submit the issue, assign it to myself and push the fixes.

Specifically: when looking into the requirements to list the coin, I noticed a problem in the PIVX validator, that was missed due to poor choices in the invalid address checks. This is further exacerbated by the fact that it’s been duplicated across numerous coins (looks to be 14 different coins, give or take)

Their regex has a leading character test, then a test for 25 to 34 following characters. However that following character expression should have only been 33 characters long, rather than 34 because the leading character was pulled out. Their InvalidAddress tests all start with the same invalid character; so while there is 3 tests, one for length, one for containing an O, and one for containing a #, they all fail because of that leading character test. So the bug in the length, that will allow 35 character addresses to pass, wasn’t caught, because of the leading 1.

Is this something that’s kosher for me to go ahead and tweak the PIVX.java, PIVXTest.java and the proliferated clones; or is that out of my swim lane?


#2

Shows that most altcoins take copy&paste very serious :wink:

Thanks for reporting. I am not much involved wiht assets and we are short on dev resources. Feel free to make a PR as you think it makes most sense. Bernard is the reviewer of that module, but can take a while as he is very busy as well.


#3

Okay cool. I’ll take care of it, and see where I can help out when I have time.


#4

Much thanks for reporting.