Duplicate close-amount/closing-amount field

[barnjamin]

A community member (Frank) noticed that the closing amount field in the transaction payload

indexer/api/converter_utils.go

Line 311 in 99ab66f

CloseAmount: uint64Ptr(stxn.ApplyData.ClosingAmount.Raw),

indexer/api/converter_utils.go

Line 489 in 99ab66f

ClosingAmount: uint64Ptr(stxn.ClosingAmount.Raw),

Are both of these necessary?

[Eric-Warehime]

I looked into this a bit, but we need some more investigation...

The closing amount is indeed duplicated in this API response. The cause of this is that the Transaction type in our API definition has a closing amount and potentially a payment transaction (which has a closing amount in it).

I think the fact that the txn might not have a payment txn means it's not a duplicated field 100% of the time, and I don't really see a reason to remove the closing amount from the PaymentTransaction type either.

Like I said, I just took a brief look at this so maybe there is a way we can separate these and remove one that's not immediately obvious.

[FrankSzendzielarz]

"I think the fact that the txn might not have a payment txn "

I think the issue there is that the json spec is trying to model inheritance via composition. A transaction does not 'have' a payment transaction - it either 'is' a payment transaction or is not.