- major refactoring of extensions
- extensions live now in a separate library, libtalerextensions
- refactored all components using age_restriction accordingly
- plumbing for plugin support for extensions roughly layed down
- taler-offline-tool now handles extensions
- command "extensions" added with subcommands "show" and "sign"
- parses extensions from taler config
- shows and signs of extensions and their configurations
- creates signed set of configurations for upload
- added test for retrieval of extension config
- simplified signature verification for extensions
- remove per-extension signatures, also from DB schema
- adjust prepared statements accordingly
- adjust DB event handler for extensions
- allow NULL for config for extension in DB schema
- handler for /management/extensions adjusted to new datastructures
- changed test for TALER_denom_blind/TALER_denom_sign_blinded with and
without TALER_AgeHash
- minor updates and various fixes
add back #include <sys/eventfd.h>, but conditionalize on #ifdef __linux__
(This fix follows the spirit of the other changes (i.e.,
adding #ifdef __linux__) but might not be the best solution.)
The current "/recoup" API does not have clear idempotency semantics, as we've discussed on the phone. This is already bad by itself, as it makes it hard to write down what the API does other than "whatever the implementation does".
However, it actually breaks correctness in this (admittedly kinda contrived, but not impossible) case:
Say that we have a coin A obtained via withdrawal and a coin B obtained via refreshing coin A. Now the denominations of A gets revoked..
The wallet does a recoup of A for EUR:1.
Now the denomination of B also gets revoked. The wallet recoups B (incidentally also for EUR:1) and now A can be recouped again for EUR:1. But now the exchange is in a state where it will refuse a legitimate recoup request for A because the detection for an idempotent request kicks in.
This is IMHO bad API design, and the exchange should simply always recoup the maximum amount.
Furthermore, we usually follow the principle of "API calls that take up DB space are paid". With the current recoup API, I can do many tiny recoup requests which the exchange then has to store, right?
I guess it would not be a big change to remove the "amount" value from the recoup/recoup-refresh request bodies, right?
- Florian
