Flatten REST POST payload

[alessio]

(sprung from #3179 (comment))

Presently, POST requests body embed a BaseReq nested object, e.g. POST tx/sign takes a JSON object like the following example:

{
  "tx": object,
  "append_sig": false,
  "base_req": {
    "name": "key",
    "password": "password",
    "chain_id": "gaia-9002"
  }
}

I'd propose to promote base_req fields and treat them as first-class citizens - this seems to make sense as those fields are required for the request to be successfully processed. That would simplify and flatten the expected data structure, which would then look like as follows:

{
  "tx": object,
  "append_sig": false,
  "name": "key",
  "password": "password",
  "chain_id": "gaia-9002"
}

Please discuss.

/CC @faboweb @alexanderbez @jackzampolin @fedekunze @sabau @cwgoes

---

For Admin Use

• Not duplicate issue
• Appropriate labels applied
• Appropriate contributors tagged
• Contributor assigned/self-assigned

[alexanderbez]

💯 % agree. The BaseReq should simply be embedded giving you a flat structure.

[faboweb]

I actually think this structure makes sense as it decouples the content and the meta information.
I.e. for POST /bank/accounts/%s/transfers you split the amount and the signing info.

Not feeling too strongly about it. But would also avoid this refactor.

[alexanderbez]

But there is no metadata fields persay...all the fields are primary/first-class-citizens imho.

[fedekunze]

I agree with this proposal, we can keep the base request struct for validation purposes and flatten the request body

[alexanderbez]

@fedekunze precisely what we're suggesting!

[faboweb]

Ok cool. I would just not do it because it doesn't deliver a clear value to me and is a breaking change.

[jackzampolin]

@faboweb's concern is mine as well.

[alessio]

I think @faboweb got a point here, I can feel frontend's pain in making many changes for the sake of little to none value - can we at least change the inner object's name please? base_req means very little to me, maybe auth? Any better names anyone?

[faboweb]

auth sounds good. Alternatives: meta_info, header, signing_info (which is not the case for generate_only)

[fedekunze]

what's the consensus on this proposal then ? I'm fine with leaving base_req as it is now.

[alexanderbez]

I still agree that we should flatten it completely.

[alessio]

Up-to-date structure follows:

// BaseReq defines a structure that can be embedded in other request structures
// that all share common "base" fields.
type BaseReq struct {
	From          string       `json:"from"`
	Memo          string       `json:"memo"`
	ChainID       string       `json:"chain_id"`
	AccountNumber uint64       `json:"account_number"`
	Sequence      uint64       `json:"sequence"`
	Fees          sdk.Coins    `json:"fees"`
	GasPrices     sdk.DecCoins `json:"gas_prices"`
	Gas           string       `json:"gas"`
	GasAdjustment string       `json:"gas_adjustment"`
	Simulate      bool         `json:"simulate"`
}

auth and signing_info do not make much sense anymore as neither credentials nor signatures are carried with requests

[alessio]

meta sounds like a good name to me

[alexanderbez]

Imho, we should flatten the type. meta doesn't make sense because it's not about the request -- it is the request.

[alessio]

Yes, fair enough.

[jackzampolin]

Didn't we do this? Also we removed a large amount of data from the base_req. Going to go ahead and close this issue.