Skip to content

Expose transaction receipt fields #507

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
bsiaotickchong wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+34 −6
Open

Expose transaction receipt fields #507

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 10 additions & 2 deletions mintlify/openapi.yaml
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

12 changes: 10 additions & 2 deletions openapi.yaml
View file
Open in desktop

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

8 changes: 6 additions & 2 deletions openapi/components/schemas/common/ReconciliationInstructions.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
type: object
required:
- reference
properties:
reference:
type: string
description: >-
Unique reference code that must be included with the payment to match it
with the correct incoming transaction
example: UMA-Q12345-REF
Comment on lines 3 to 8
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@greptile-apps greptile-apps Bot May 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Stale "must be included" wording after making reference optional

The reference field description still reads "must be included with the payment", but the required constraint was just removed. Any API consumer reading this description will think the field is mandatory when the schema now treats it as optional — the two are in direct conflict.

Prompt To Fix With AI 
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: openapi/components/schemas/common/ReconciliationInstructions.yaml
Line: 3-8

Comment:
**Stale "must be included" wording after making `reference` optional**

The `reference` field description still reads "must be included with the payment", but the `required` constraint was just removed. Any API consumer reading this description will think the field is mandatory when the schema now treats it as optional — the two are in direct conflict.

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

Fix in Claude Code

transactionHash:
type: string
description: >-
Transaction hash for the crypto transfer that delivered funds to the
transaction destination, when available.
example: "0x9f2c6b6f4b6c8f2a8d9e0b1c2d3e4f5061728394a5b6c7d8e9f00112233445566"
Comment on lines 1 to +14
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@greptile-apps greptile-apps Bot May 26, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Schema now accepts a fully-empty ReconciliationInstructions object

With both reference and transactionHash optional, the object {} is valid per the schema. The PR description states the intent is to allow a transaction hash when no payment reference exists, implying at least one field should always be present. A minProperties: 1 constraint (or an anyOf / oneOf requiring at least one of the two fields) would close the gap and prevent a semantically meaningless empty object from passing validation.

Prompt To Fix With AI 
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: openapi/components/schemas/common/ReconciliationInstructions.yaml
Line: 1-13

Comment:
**Schema now accepts a fully-empty `ReconciliationInstructions` object**

With both `reference` and `transactionHash` optional, the object `{}` is valid per the schema. The PR description states the intent is to allow a transaction hash *when no payment reference exists*, implying at least one field should always be present. A `minProperties: 1` constraint (or an `anyOf` / `oneOf` requiring at least one of the two fields) would close the gap and prevent a semantically meaningless empty object from passing validation.

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

Fix in Claude Code

8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions openapi/components/schemas/transactions/IncomingTransaction.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -15,6 +15,14 @@ allOf:
receivedAmount:
$ref: ../common/CurrencyAmount.yaml
description: Amount received in the recipient's currency
fees:
type: integer
format: int64
description: >-
The fees associated with the transaction in the smallest unit of the
receiving currency (eg. cents).
minimum: 0
example: 10
reconciliationInstructions:
$ref: ../common/ReconciliationInstructions.yaml
description: Included for all transactions except those with "CREATED" status
Expand Down
Loading