[Bug] PrimitiveSignature doesn't support serialized Signature

[gusinacio]

Component

primitives

What version of Alloy are you on?

0.8

Operating System

None

Describe the bug

My current system uses serialization and deserialization to send signatures via the network. We were using Signature but since version 0.4.2, it was deprecated to use PrimitiveSignature. The problem is that I don't control the clients and if they update to the latest version or not, so I'm still receiving older signatures.

I had to revert because the deserialization couldn't process the parity if it were Eip155 or NonEip155.

app 2024-12-19T18:29:17.724484Z DEBUG jsonrpsee_core::proc_macros_support: Error parsing "receipts" as "Vec < EIP712SignedMessage < Receipt > >": ErrorObject { code: InvalidParams, message: "Invalid params", data: Some(RawValue("invalid y_parity at line 1 column 331" │
│ )) }

I don't know if this is considered a breaking change or if you have any suggestions for fixing this problem.

[ethsdev]

Hello @gusinacio , sorry for leaving a comment here without respecting the team rules. As a blockchain developer, I think my tech stack is fit for the team project. So I want to prove my skills by solving some team issues and join the team as a full-time developer. Could you give me a test task?

[mattsse]

@klkvr I assume this happens because of

core/crates/primitives/src/signature/primitive_sig.rs

Lines 380 to 381 in f8d55dd

	let y_parity = y_parity
	.or(v)

[gusinacio]

I think it's related to

core/crates/primitives/src/signature/primitive_sig.rs

Lines 389 to 390 in f8d55dd

	if y_parity > U64::from(1) {
	Err(serde::de::Error::custom("invalid y_parity"))

Since older signatures could have 27/28 for NonEip155 or bigger equal than 35 for Eip155, It's not possible to deserialize using PrimitiveSignature.

[klkvr]

@gusinacio with #832 this should deserialize correctly, however note that if we receive a signature with eip155 value for v, the data about chain id will be lost during deserialization unless the signature is serialized along with chainId key (which is what's happening for legacy transactions for example)

[gusinacio]

Thanks for the quick response and resolution!

I'm using signatures with Eip712 so I don't need information about ChainId because it's already in the domain. As long as it can deserialize correctly and recover the signer address, I'm happy.

[gusinacio]

Hi there, is there any release schedule for this fix to be added?