Visible accounts for dapps (default whitelist)

[jacogr]

• UI for global whitelist portion of https://github.com/ethcore/parity/pull/3792
• Closes https://github.com/ethcore/parity/issues/3825

[jacogr]

There is a massive issue here though - none of our internal dapps use eth_accounts so it doesn't reflect only the accounts it is supposed to see... All dapps needs to be updated to use a combination of eth_accounts & parity_accountsInfo again.

[gavofyork]

i don't understand - does one of eth_accounts and parity_accountsInfo show more accounts than just the restricted set that the dapp is allowed to see?

[jacogr]

It seems like parity_accounts returns everything. Dapps don't currently use eth_accounts at all. (Whitelist is set, verified by looking at dapps_policy.json), eg.

$ cat ~/Library/Application\ Support/io.parity.ethereum/keys/test/dapps_policy.json
{"default":{"Whitelist":["0xf6abb80f11f269e4500a05721680e0a3ab075ecf"]}}% 

Registry dapp still shows all accounts. However using the Js console -

parity.api.eth.accounts().then(console.log)
<
undefined
 
0xF6ABb80F11f269e4500A05721680E0a3AB075Ecf

&&

parity.api.parity.accounts().then((accs) => console.log(Object.keys(accs).filter((addr) => accs[addr].uuid).length))
<
undefined
 
13

[tomusdrw]

parity_accounts or parity_accountsInfo shouldn't be available anywhere except for IPC and Signer interfaces so it's never exposed to standard dapps.

[jacogr]

The built-in dapps do use parity_accounts (and it returns everything) - the reason they all use this call is to have access to the account names.

[jacogr]

Dapp issues & accountsInfo/allAccountsInfo addressed in https://github.com/ethcore/parity/pull/3931

[gavofyork]

needs resolving

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.002%) to 85.536% when pulling be7458e on jg-dapps-accounts into 63d68aa on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 85.539% when pulling be7458e on jg-dapps-accounts into 63d68aa on master.

[gavofyork]

needs resolving again. @ngotchac / @derhuerst a review would be good, too...

[ngotchac]

Why isn't this in format/input ?

[jacogr]

Good point, I initially moved it to the top to get going (testing), but never moved it to the formatters as it should be. (Nor really major since it is the only place it is used, but still not consistent.)

[ngotchac]

Why isn't this in format/output ?

[ngotchac]

Looks good. Small grumble, also the Todo comment for the Modal could be implemented now that the new address select component is in Master, but I don't think that we want to do this now.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.002%) to 85.079% when pulling 4df87af on jg-dapps-accounts into 80eae8c on master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.002%) to 85.079% when pulling 4df87af on jg-dapps-accounts into 80eae8c on master.