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.

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

Inconsistent / inconvenient account selection on importing wallet from mnemonic #196

Open
Voll3r opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@Voll3r
Copy link

Voll3r commented Sep 26, 2024

When importing a wallet from a mnemonic, the user is given the choice which specific accounts and also which types of accounts to import. This is a useful feature for sure, but the UI behaviour seems a little haphazard in places, making the process unintuitive and needlessly time consuming.

It seems to me the way the checkboxes are interconnected is not actually implemented as intended. In the worst case, the process is interrupted prematurely, the user has to start fresh and reenter the mnemonic.

At the starting point, all accounts are pre-selected. This is perfectly fine and I have no issues with that:

image

Deselecting any top checkmark will also deselect the corresponding bottom checkmark. This makes sense and is fine.

1. Unchecking bottom box also unchecks top box.

Deselecting any bottom checkmark with also deselect the top checkmark. This is unexpected and I'm guessing also unintended?

image

It seems all bottom checkboxes are linked to the top boxes when deselecting. It seems to me that this is actually a bug. In the worst case this will force the user to restart the import process (see item 4 below).

2. Checking bottom box does not force-check top box

I'm guessing the intention behind linking the checkboxes is that the user cannot import the second address without also importing the first?

However, if both boxes are unchecked and the user checks the bottom box, the top box will not be checked also.

image

Again this is the case for all account types and I'm assuming this is a bug.

3. Connection between NeoX and Etherium seems hapharzard

I'm not into NeoX, but from the checkbox behaviour I'm guessing that there is a dependency with Etherium which requires that a NeoX account must have a corresponding Etherium account and/or vice versa? If so, it makes sense to have some linkage in the checkboxes, but the current behaviour is not consistent:

E.g. unchecking the top box on NeoX will also uncheck the bottom box on NeoX (see item 1 above), but it will only uncheck the top box for Etherium. The bottom Etherium box remains checked:

image

Similarly (with all four boxes checked)

  • unchecking the bottom NeoX box will also uncheck the top NeoX box, but only the bottom Etherium box.
  • unchecking the top Etherium box will also uncheck the bottom Etherium box, but only the top NeoX box.
  • unchecking the bottom Etherium box will also uncheck the top Etherium box, but only the bottom NeoX box.

When none of the boxes are checked, there appears to be no linkage at all.

4. Unexpected interruption of workflow:

Consider the following scenario: a user wants to add a single N3 account. The user will uncheck all legacy, NeoX and Etherium accounts. As a last action, the user will uncheck the bottom tick box on N3. However, this will deselect both addresses and end the workflow:

image

The user has to restart the import process and reenter the mnemonic.

This would happen not just for N3, but for any situation in which deselecting the bottom box also unexpectedly unchecks the top box resulting in none of the boxes being checked.

Suggestion: rather than interrupting the workflow and forcing the user to reenter the mnemonic, the "Import" button should simply be greyed out when no accounts are selected.

@thiagocbalducci
Copy link
Collaborator

Excellent points! I will create an internal issue to improve this.

You are on a roll :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants