feat: Add TokenX integration and fix FabricX transaction mismatch #1101

gutama · 2026-01-03T11:04:33Z

No description provided.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds a comprehensive TokenX integration for FabricX and fixes a critical transaction mismatch issue in the endorsement process. The main purpose is to provide a working token management system while resolving bugs that prevented proper endorsement validation.

Key Changes:

Fixed FabricX transaction endorsement mismatch by using received RWSet bytes directly instead of re-serializing
Fixed sidecar port configuration to use dynamic ports instead of hardcoded values
Added comprehensive TokenX integration with support for issuing, transferring, redeeming, and swapping tokens

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 26 out of 26 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
platform/fabricx/core/transaction/transaction.go	Core fix: uses received RWSet bytes for endorsement to avoid namespace version mismatches
platform/fabricx/core/vault/interceptor.go	Enhanced logging for debugging RWSet serialization and namespace versions
platform/fabric/services/endorser/endorsement.go	Added detailed error logging for endorsement result mismatches
integration/nwo/fabricx/extensions/scv2/notificationservice.go	Modified to accept dynamic port parameter
integration/nwo/fabricx/extensions/scv2/ext.go	Passes dynamic sidecar port to notification service configuration
integration/fabricx/tokenx/views/*.go	New token operation views (issue, transfer, redeem, swap, balance, auditor, approver)
integration/fabricx/tokenx/states/states.go	Data models for tokens, transaction records, and swap proposals
integration/fabricx/tokenx/topology.go	Network topology definition with issuer, auditor, and owner nodes
integration/fabricx/tokenx/api/*.go	REST API handlers and OpenAPI specification
integration/fabricx/tokenx/*.md	Comprehensive documentation including walkthrough, specification, and task tracking
integration/fabricx/tokenx/*_test.go	Integration test suite using Ginkgo
Makefile	Added tokenx integration test target and updated linter installation path

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:06Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/api/handlers.go

+func (h *redeemHandler) HandleRequest(ctx *server.ReqContext) (interface{}, int) {
+	req := ctx.Query.(*RedeemRequest)
+
+	amount := states.TokenFromFloat(100) // TODO: parse req.Amount


The hardcoded TODO comment indicates incomplete implementation. The amount parsing from the request is not implemented, which means all redeem requests will attempt to redeem the same hardcoded amount (100) regardless of the requested amount in the API call.

Suggested change

amount := states.TokenFromFloat(100) // TODO: parse req.Amount

amount := states.TokenFromFloat(req.Amount)

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:07Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/views/balance.go

+	logger.Infof("Querying owner history: type=%s, txType=%s", h.TokenType, h.TxType)
+
+	// Get current owner identity
+	fns, err := fabric.GetDefaultFNS(ctx)
+	assert.NoError(err, "failed getting FNS")
+	_ = fns.LocalMembership().DefaultIdentity()
+


The owner variable is assigned but never used. This suggests the history query implementation is incomplete and currently returns empty results.

Suggested change

logger.Infof("Querying owner history: type=%s, txType=%s", h.TokenType, h.TxType)

// Get current owner identity

fns, err := fabric.GetDefaultFNS(ctx)

assert.NoError(err, "failed getting FNS")

_ = fns.LocalMembership().DefaultIdentity()

// Get current owner identity

fns, err := fabric.GetDefaultFNS(ctx)

assert.NoError(err, "failed getting FNS")

owner := fns.LocalMembership().DefaultIdentity()

logger.Infof("Querying owner history for owner [%s]: type=%s, txType=%s", owner, h.TokenType, h.TxType)

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:07Z

Makefile

 install-linter-tool: ## Install linter in $(go env GOPATH)/bin
 	@echo "Installing golangci Linter"
-	@curl -sSfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/HEAD/install.sh | sh -s -- -b $(go env GOPATH)/bin v2.4.0
+	@curl -sSfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/HEAD/install.sh | sh -s -- -b ~/.local/bin v2.4.0


The golangci-lint installer path should use a shell variable expansion $(shell go env GOPATH)/bin instead of the literal string ~/.local/bin to ensure consistency across different development environments and to match the pattern used in line 41.

Suggested change

@curl -sSfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/HEAD/install.sh | sh -s -- -b ~/.local/bin v2.4.0

@curl -sSfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/HEAD/install.sh | sh -s -- -b $(shell go env GOPATH)/bin v2.4.0

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:07Z

platform/fabricx/core/transaction/transaction.go

+		var serErr error
+		rawTx, serErr = rwset.Bytes()
+		if serErr != nil {
+			return nil, errors.WithMessagef(serErr, "error serializing rws for [%s]", t.ID())


The variable serErr is unnecessarily introduced. The error can be returned directly using err as in the surrounding code, which is more consistent with the codebase style.

Suggested change

var serErr error

rawTx, serErr = rwset.Bytes()

if serErr != nil {

return nil, errors.WithMessagef(serErr, "error serializing rws for [%s]", t.ID())

rawTx, err = rwset.Bytes()

if err != nil {

return nil, errors.WithMessagef(err, "error serializing rws for [%s]", t.ID())

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:07Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/views/issue.go

+		Amount:    i.Amount,
+		Owner:     i.Recipient,
+		IssuerID:  "issuer", // Simple identifier
+		CreatedAt: time.Time{},


The CreatedAt field is initialized with a zero time value time.Time{} instead of the current time using time.Now(). This is inconsistent with other token creation in the codebase (see transfer.go line 86, 99) and will result in tokens having an invalid timestamp.

Suggested change

CreatedAt: time.Time{},

CreatedAt: time.Now(),

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:08Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/views/balance.go

+	// For now, we demonstrate the pattern
+	_ = qs
+	_ = vault
+	_ = owner


Unused variables qs, vault, and owner are assigned but never used. This suggests the balance query implementation is incomplete and currently returns empty results.

Suggested change

// For now, we demonstrate the pattern

_ = qs

_ = vault

_ = owner

// For now, we demonstrate the pattern. Currently, we only log the context.

logger.Infof(

"[BalanceView] Query context - owner: %+v, queryService: %T, vault: %T",

owner, qs, vault,

)

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:08Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/views/issue.go

+		TokenType: i.TokenType,
+		Amount:    i.Amount,
+		To:        i.Recipient,
+		Timestamp: time.Time{},


The Timestamp field is initialized with a zero time value time.Time{} instead of the current time using time.Now(). This is inconsistent with other transaction records in the codebase (see transfer.go line 112) and will result in records having invalid timestamps.

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:08Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/api/handlers.go

+	req := ctx.Query.(*IssueRequest)
+
+	// Convert amount string to uint64 (would parse decimal in production)
+	amount := states.TokenFromFloat(1000) // TODO: parse req.Amount


The hardcoded TODO comment indicates incomplete implementation. The amount parsing from the request is not implemented, which means all issue requests will create tokens with the same hardcoded amount (1000) regardless of the requested amount in the API call.

Copilot · 2026-01-03T11:08:08Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/api/handlers.go

+func (h *transferHandler) HandleRequest(ctx *server.ReqContext) (interface{}, int) {
+	req := ctx.Query.(*TransferRequest)
+
+	amount := states.TokenFromFloat(100) // TODO: parse req.Amount


The hardcoded TODO comment indicates incomplete implementation. The amount parsing from the request is not implemented, which means all transfer requests will attempt to transfer the same hardcoded amount (100) regardless of the requested amount in the API call.

mbrandenburger · 2026-01-06T10:57:08Z

@gutama Thank you for creating this PR. Can you please have a look at the DCO check and fix it.

Signed-off-by: gutama <ginanjar.utama@gmail.com>

gutama · 2026-01-06T22:22:49Z

DCO check passed, thank you

adecaro · 2026-01-07T08:37:08Z

I'm wondering if the TokenX app should be better positioned in the fabric-samples rather than here.
@gutama @mbrandenburger , what do you think?

adecaro · 2026-01-07T08:37:34Z

@gutama , is this PR fully generated by AI?

gutama · 2026-01-07T12:11:37Z

Actually at first I only want to learn how to use fabricx by extending simple and iou sample, so TokenX uses FabricX and FSC state management directly. Somehow I can't run integration test successfully that's why I put PR, because the code need changes in other places.

Fully generated by AI and a lot of debugging.

Signed-off-by: Ginanjar Utama <ginanjar.utama@gmail.com>

mbrandenburger · 2026-01-16T12:43:34Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/api/handlers.go

+SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0
+*/
+
+package api


I am wondering if we really should add this api package as part of an integration test here. For a real FSC-based application, it makes sense to me, however, as part of the integration test suite I believe we aim to keep the tests small.

mbrandenburger · 2026-01-16T12:44:58Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/views/issue.go

+	Issue
+}
+
+func (i *IssueView) Call(ctx view.Context) (interface{}, error) {


I can see that this view is called via the integration tests. @gutama Do you plan to also add tests for the other views, including, transfer, redeem, etc ... ?

mbrandenburger · 2026-01-16T12:45:45Z

integration/nwo/fabricx/extensions/scv2/ext.go

 func (e *Extension) GenerateArtifacts() {
 	generateQSExtension(e.network)
-	generateNSExtension(e.network)
+	generateNSExtension(e.network, e.sidecar.Ports[fabric_network.ListenPort])


This is a good improvement!

mbrandenburger · 2026-01-16T12:55:24Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/SPECIFICATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,1008 @@
+# TokenX - Token Management System Specification


I think this a great spec! However, I have the feeling it's a bit beyond the scope of an integration test. I could think about create a dedicated lab to continue development of this application, or work towards a "fabric-x" sample. What do you think?

mbrandenburger · 2026-01-16T12:57:06Z

integration/fabricx/tokenx/TASK.md

+### 1. Endorsement Mismatch (Fixed)
+
+**Issue**: The FabricX RWSet serialization includes local namespace versions. When the approver node re-serialized the RWSet, it used its own local versions which differed from the issuer's, causing a hash mismatch.
+
+**Fix**: Modified `platform/fabricx/core/transaction/transaction.go` to check if `t.RWSet` is populated (received from issuer) and use it directly instead of re-serializing.
+
+### 2. Sidecar Port Mismatch (Fixed)
+
+**Issue**: The integration test hung at "Post execution for FSC nodes...". Debugging revealed the Sidecar container was launching on a dynamic port (e.g., 5420), but the client configuration was hardcoded to connect to `5411`.
+
+**Fix**:
+- Updated `integration/nwo/fabricx/extensions/scv2/notificationservice.go`: `generateNSExtension` now accepts a port argument.
+- Updated `integration/nwo/fabricx/extensions/scv2/ext.go`: `GenerateArtifacts` retrieves the correct `fabric_network.ListenPort` from the sidecar configuration and passes it to `generateNSExtension`.


Great job identifying these issue. Let's work on getting these fixes in.

mbrandenburger · 2026-01-16T13:04:42Z

@gutama Thanks again for your PR. I left a few comments (see above). I really like your proposal for another integration test that demonstrates a full token system built with FPC and Fabric-x, however, I am also hesitating if the FSC integration tests are the best home for this application. Ideally, we can refine the scope of this PR and remove functionality which is not yet tests (e.g., transfer, redeem, etc) or not needed for the integration test (e.g., the SPEC, api package, ...). WDYT?

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings January 3, 2026 11:04

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of gutama January 3, 2026 11:04 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

mbrandenburger self-requested a review January 5, 2026 09:43

mbrandenburger added the Fabric-x label Jan 5, 2026

mbrandenburger mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

refactor(fabricx): consistent use of errors package #1108

Merged

feat: Add TokenX integration and fix FabricX transaction mismatch

d534a52

Signed-off-by: gutama <ginanjar.utama@gmail.com>

gutama force-pushed the fix/tokenx-integration branch from 25e23e2 to d534a52 Compare January 6, 2026 22:18

Merge branch 'main' into fix/tokenx-integration

e791737

Signed-off-by: Ginanjar Utama <ginanjar.utama@gmail.com>

mbrandenburger reviewed Jan 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

	amount := states.TokenFromFloat(100) // TODO: parse req.Amount
	amount := states.TokenFromFloat(req.Amount)

	@curl -sSfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/HEAD/install.sh \| sh -s -- -b ~/.local/bin v2.4.0
	@curl -sSfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/golangci/golangci-lint/HEAD/install.sh \| sh -s -- -b $(shell go env GOPATH)/bin v2.4.0

		@@ -0,0 +1,1008 @@
		# TokenX - Token Management System Specification

feat: Add TokenX integration and fix FabricX transaction mismatch #1101

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: Add TokenX integration and fix FabricX transaction mismatch #1101

Conversation

gutama commented Jan 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mbrandenburger commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

gutama commented Jan 6, 2026

Uh oh!

adecaro commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

adecaro commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

gutama commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

mbrandenburger Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mbrandenburger Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mbrandenburger Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mbrandenburger Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mbrandenburger Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mbrandenburger commented Jan 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants