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

Configuration for how transactions are signed (Function Call Access Key vs Wallet integration) #669

Closed
toteto opened this issue Jan 30, 2023 · 8 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@toteto
Copy link

toteto commented Jan 30, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

The usecase of my DApp there is only single interaction with the Near chain. For the purpose of this, it makes more sense to make the singing of the transaction by using the wallet Full Access key instead of creating Function Call access key dedicated to the DApp and the smart contract.

The current implementation of most wallet-selector modules don't have a stable way of achieving single sign transaction without it creating function call access key.

Describe the solution you'd like

Easiest place to put this would be maybe in the modal-ui right next to the contractId. Or maybe it can be implicitly deducted when the contractId is se to undefined/null.

Describe alternatives you've considered

  • Providing empty string '' in the contractId field
  • Providing empty array for methods

Both of these behave differently on different wallet integrations. Not reliable.

Acceptance criteria

  • The DApp has the ability to define desired way of interacting with Near
    • Prefer Function Call access key
    • Prefer individual wallet integrations
@DamirSQA
Copy link
Contributor

DamirSQA commented Feb 3, 2023

Hi @toteto , thanks for raising an issue, we're taking a look on it.

@DamirSQA
Copy link
Contributor

DamirSQA commented Feb 17, 2023

Hi @toteto , the fix is addressed, and it will be included with the next release.
Let us know if there's more questions or issues when you check it out. Thanks.

@toteto
Copy link
Author

toteto commented Feb 17, 2023

Thanks @DamirSQA , will check it out when I get the release!

Are you ware of the state of #670 since that is blocking us from updating to newer version of the wallet-selctor lib?

@DamirSQA
Copy link
Contributor

DamirSQA commented Feb 17, 2023

Yes @toteto, the #670 fix will be included in the release.

@toteto
Copy link
Author

toteto commented Feb 20, 2023

@DamirSQA can you please let me know how this issue is related to the fix you provided via #698?

Also reading through the release notes it seems that this issue is not resolved.

@Damirhub
Copy link

Hey, @toteto this issue was closed by the fact that now you can signIn to some wallets by setting the contractId to an empty string. 
Just to give you more context on the topic of signIn: At the moment there is no correct way to signIn with wallet selector without creating a FunctionCall Access Key, based on the Standard here sign-in means creating a FAK. Some wallets allow you sign-in by passing the contractId as an empty string but that should not be the case because in those wallets signIn is doing two different things. The plan is for wallet selector to add a new way to signIn without adding a FunctionCall Access Key by following the signMessage NEP which is still in progress, in wallet selector this would ideally be done by using the verifyOwner function which we will need to update once everything is finalized regarding the mentioned NEP. If we have misunderstood something about this issue please let us know.

@toteto
Copy link
Author

toteto commented Feb 21, 2023

Thanks for the explanation. Hope the official support for signIn without FAK woudn't take so long. Do you have a issue that is tracking this, would be helpful maybe to link it here so people can navigate to it and track it.

@Damirhub
Copy link

You're welcome, you can have a look on this PR.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants