Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

inconsistent error message for update_asset_issuer #944

Closed
tianyekuo opened this issue May 22, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

inconsistent error message for update_asset_issuer #944

tianyekuo opened this issue May 22, 2018 · 3 comments
Assignees
@abitmore
Labels
1b User Story The User Story details a requirement. It may reference a parent Epic. It may reference child Task(s) 2f Testing Status indicating the solution is being evaluated against the test case(s) 3d Bug Classification indicating the existing implementation does not match the intention of the design 4a Low Priority Priority indicating minimal impact to system/user -OR- an inexpensive workaround exists bug
Milestone
201810 - Feature ...

Comments

@tianyekuo
Copy link

Issues:
For the new feature BSIP29, if only import activity key of the asset issuer without import the owner key, then call the API update_asset_issuer. It will fail with this message Missing Active Authority 1.2.22628
In fact, the activity key is provided, user may get confused here.

Expect:
It should warning Missing Owner Authority.
@abitmore
Copy link
Member

I'll look into this.

Note: this is a minor issue, but perhaps hard to fix, so probably unable to fix in this release.

@abitmore abitmore self-assigned this May 22, 2018
@abitmore abitmore added bug 4a Low Priority Priority indicating minimal impact to system/user -OR- an inexpensive workaround exists labels May 22, 2018
@abitmore
Copy link
Member

I believe #580 is the other side of the same issue. The reason is: active authority of fee_payer is checked first, even when the operation requires owner authority of same account.

@abitmore abitmore modified the milestones: 201806 - Consensus Changing Release, Future Non-Consensus-Changing Release May 22, 2018
@ryanRfox ryanRfox added 1b User Story The User Story details a requirement. It may reference a parent Epic. It may reference child Task(s) 2b Gathering Requirements Status indicating currently refining User Stories and defining Requirements 3d Bug Classification indicating the existing implementation does not match the intention of the design labels May 23, 2018
abitmore added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 14, 2018
@abitmore
Added test case to reproduce #944
b4a8f86 
tx_missing_active_auth exception is thrown when owner authority is missing
abitmore added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 14, 2018
@abitmore
Check owner authority before active authority #944
67b003b
@abitmore abitmore mentioned this issue Aug 14, 2018
Merged
@abitmore abitmore added 2f Testing Status indicating the solution is being evaluated against the test case(s) and removed 2b Gathering Requirements Status indicating currently refining User Stories and defining Requirements labels Aug 14, 2018
abitmore added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 16, 2018
@abitmore
Merge pull request #1255 from bitshares/944-missing-owner-auth
717eb85 
Fix #944 unexpected "Missing Active Authority" message for update_asset_issuer
@abitmore
Copy link
Member

Fixed by #1255.

@TheTaconator TheTaconator mentioned this issue Oct 15, 2018
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@abitmore abitmore

Labels
1b User Story The User Story details a requirement. It may reference a parent Epic. It may reference child Task(s) 2f Testing Status indicating the solution is being evaluated against the test case(s) 3d Bug Classification indicating the existing implementation does not match the intention of the design 4a Low Priority Priority indicating minimal impact to system/user -OR- an inexpensive workaround exists bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
201810 - Feature Release
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@tianyekuo @abitmore @ryanRfox