fix: transaction displayed fee

[SWvheerden]

Description

Fixes the display to correctly display the correct fee. This is only a sender side issue where the sender does not update the fee to the correct one sent to the blockchain.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @SWvheerden, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical issue where the transaction fee displayed to the sender was not always accurate. The changes ensure that the MemoField, which carries transaction details, is consistently updated with the correct total fee. This improves the reliability of fee reporting within the wallet and streamlines the testing process by converting several asynchronous tests to synchronous ones, enhancing overall code stability and maintainability.

Highlights

• Transaction Fee Display Correction: The primary fix ensures that the transaction fee displayed on the sender's side accurately reflects the actual fee sent to the blockchain. This is achieved by explicitly setting the total_fee within the MemoField during transaction finalization.
• Test Refactoring: Numerous asynchronous test cases in transaction_builder/builder.rs were refactored from #[tokio::test] async fn to synchronous #[test] fn, simplifying the test environment for these specific scenarios.
• Fee Consistency Verification: A new test case, transaction_details_correct, was added to validate that the fee recorded in the MemoField matches the actual total fee of the transaction, reinforcing the accuracy of fee display.
• MemoField Fee Update in Transaction Service: The transaction_service/service.rs file was updated across multiple functions to ensure that the MemoField (payment_id) associated with a transaction is explicitly updated with the final calculated fee before being used to create CompletedTransaction objects. This guarantees that the wallet's displayed fee is consistent with the on-chain fee.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request aims to fix an issue where the transaction fee was not correctly displayed on the sender's side. The changes involve updating the TransactionBuilder to set the fee in the transaction memo and modifying various methods in the TransactionService to ensure the correct fee is propagated when creating completed transactions.

My review identifies a few areas for improvement:

• The logic for setting the fee in the TransactionBuilder when no memo is provided appears to be ineffective.
• There is significant code duplication in the TransactionService for manually setting the fee, which could be refactored for better maintainability.
• The new test case in builder.rs contains some unused variables that can be removed.

While the changes in TransactionService seem to correctly work around the issue, addressing the root cause in the TransactionBuilder and reducing code duplication would lead to a more robust and maintainable solution.