PIN confirmation problem in send #47
Labels
No Label
Compat/Breaking
Kind/Bug
Kind/Documentation
Kind/Enhancement
Kind/Feature
Kind/Security
Kind/Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
Activity:Doing
Activity:Proposal
Runner
AT
Runner
CLI
Runner
HTTP
cleanup
devops
easypeasy
exchange
l8ter
legacy
optimization
privilege
refactor
smell
support
tooling
ux
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Depends on
#79 LOAD gets re-executed in async mode
urdt/ussd
Reference: urdt/ussd#47
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
@Alfred-mk reports;
When doing PIN confirmation for send, the PIN is requested twice.
On http the confirmation fails after second time (even if PIN is correct)
On CLI it succeeds.
Apparently, similar PIN check works with balance check.
done
I have done several tests on the "Send" node and "Change language". On the CLI, the menu flows without breaking. The rest either stall or return an error.
Running cmd/main.go
But this fails on africastalking, async and http
Running cmd/async/main.go and using a wrong PIN
Running cmd/async/main.go and using a correct PIN
@Alfred-mk please rebase on #76 and try again.
It won't necessarily fix the issue, but would hopefully eliminate threaded access to db as potential problem source.
After comparing execution on cmd/main.go and cmd/async/main.go, it has been noted that LOAD statements are being executed each time they are encountered, causing the menu to display some nodes twice or more (such as PIN entries)
This only happens on the cmd/main.go
All other binaries execute the LOAD and RELOAD even though one has not exited the menu.
Ok, I see. So that has to do with persistence of the cache, then. Thanks.in fact not, current node gets re-executed when moving out of it.
Related to #79
resolved in dependency