Add method for OneKey device analysis #136
Conversation
Co-authored-by: legobeat <[email protected]>
|
@danjm this could be what we need to differentiate OneKey and Trezor devices here. |
|
Hey @AlexJupiter @danjm Think we need approve to continue the workflow. 🙏🙏 |
|
I pressed the "approve & run" button. |
|
Hey @mcmire
|
@mcmire This ci issue is a github api error, can you help me look at it? Thanks 🙏 |
|
Yeah, this check regularly fails on forks. I'll need to get someone with admin access to merge this. I can do that tomorrow. |
Hey @mcmire, have you shown this pr to anyone with admin access today so that we can continue to push for this pr to be merged into 😃 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@originalix Seems I was a bit hasty in suggesting that this be merged. I am not sure that all of the stakeholders have had a chance to look at this. Additionally, there are some style suggestions I had below. Would you mind taking a look at these?
Also pinging @danjm again due to having worked on this, and @darkwing for having worked on Trezor-related stuff in general, would you mind reviewing this?
|
@mcmire @danjm I think we should do this data collection PR first MetaMask/metamask-extension#15630 to understand how many OneKey devices are using MetaMask. Then we can make a decision on what to do with this one. |
Co-authored-by: Elliot Winkler <[email protected]>
# Conflicts: # index.js # test/test-eth-trezor-keyring.js
|
Aha. Sounds good! |
Currently, there are many users who connect to OneKey hardware wallets via the trezor keyring because they use the same protocol. This PR adds a method to get the different vendor names for easy analysis.