Enums share state, is the implementation fine?

[thecockatiel]

since enums are singletons, setting a value on a member sets it in general. is this really safe?

bisq/core/src/main/java/bisq/core/account/witness/AccountAgeWitnessService.java

Lines 101 to 138 in f079e26

	public enum SignState {
	UNSIGNED(Res.get("offerbook.timeSinceSigning.notSigned")),
	ARBITRATOR(Res.get("offerbook.timeSinceSigning.info.arbitrator")),
	PEER_INITIAL(Res.get("offerbook.timeSinceSigning.info.peer")),
	PEER_LIMIT_LIFTED(Res.get("offerbook.timeSinceSigning.info.peerLimitLifted")),
	PEER_SIGNER(Res.get("offerbook.timeSinceSigning.info.signer")),
	BANNED(Res.get("offerbook.timeSinceSigning.info.banned"));
	private String displayString;
	private String hash = "";
	private long daysUntilLimitLifted = 0;
	SignState(String displayString) {
	this.displayString = displayString;
	}
	public SignState addHash(String hash) {
	this.hash = hash;
	return this;
	}
	public SignState setDaysUntilLimitLifted(long days) {
	this.daysUntilLimitLifted = days;
	return this;
	}
	public String getDisplayString() {
	if (!hash.isEmpty()) { // Only showing in DEBUG mode
	return displayString + " " + hash;
	}
	return String.format(displayString, daysUntilLimitLifted);
	}
	public boolean isLimitLifted() {
	return this == PEER_LIMIT_LIFTED || this == PEER_SIGNER || this == ARBITRATOR;
	}
	}

bisq/core/src/main/java/bisq/core/trade/txproof/xmr/XmrTxProofRequest.java

Lines 65 to 132 in f079e26

	enum Result implements AssetTxProofRequest.Result {
	PENDING, // Tx not visible in network yet, unconfirmed or not enough confirmations
	SUCCESS, // Proof succeeded
	FAILED, // Proof failed
	ERROR; // Error from service, does not mean that proof failed
	@Nullable
	@Getter
	private Detail detail;
	Result with(Detail detail) {
	this.detail = detail;
	return this;
	}
	@Override
	public String toString() {
	return "Result{" +
	"\n detail=" + detail +
	"\n} " + super.toString();
	}
	}
	enum Detail {
	// Pending
	TX_NOT_FOUND, // Tx not visible in network yet. Could be also other error
	PENDING_CONFIRMATIONS,
	SUCCESS,
	// Error states
	CONNECTION_FAILURE,
	API_INVALID,
	// Failure states
	TX_HASH_INVALID,
	TX_KEY_INVALID,
	ADDRESS_INVALID,
	NO_MATCH_FOUND,
	AMOUNT_NOT_MATCHING,
	TRADE_DATE_NOT_MATCHING,
	INVALID_UNLOCK_TIME,
	NO_RESULTS_TIMEOUT;
	@Getter
	private int numConfirmations;
	@Nullable
	@Getter
	private String errorMsg;
	public Detail error(String errorMsg) {
	this.errorMsg = errorMsg;
	return this;
	}
	public Detail numConfirmations(int numConfirmations) {
	this.numConfirmations = numConfirmations;
	return this;
	}
	@Override
	public String toString() {
	return "Detail{" +
	"\n numConfirmations=" + numConfirmations +
	",\n errorMsg='" + errorMsg + '\'' +
	"\n} " + super.toString();
	}
	}

bisq/core/src/main/java/bisq/core/trade/protocol/FluentProtocol.java

Lines 124 to 147 in f079e26

	enum Result {
	VALID(true),
	INVALID_PHASE,
	INVALID_STATE,
	INVALID_PRE_CONDITION,
	INVALID_TRADE_ID;
	@Getter
	private boolean isValid;
	@Getter
	private String info;
	Result() {
	}
	Result(boolean isValid) {
	this.isValid = isValid;
	}
	public Result info(String info) {
	this.info = info;
	return this;
	}
	}

bisq/core/src/main/java/bisq/core/trade/txproof/AssetTxProofResult.java

Lines 67 to 90 in b3f44d2

	public AssetTxProofResult numSuccessResults(int numSuccessResults) {
	this.numSuccessResults = numSuccessResults;
	return this;
	}
	public AssetTxProofResult numRequiredSuccessResults(int numRequiredSuccessResults) {
	this.numRequiredSuccessResults = numRequiredSuccessResults;
	return this;
	}
	public AssetTxProofResult numConfirmations(int numConfirmations) {
	this.numConfirmations = numConfirmations;
	return this;
	}
	public AssetTxProofResult numRequiredConfirmations(int numRequiredConfirmations) {
	this.numRequiredConfirmations = numRequiredConfirmations;
	return this;
	}
	public AssetTxProofResult details(String details) {
	this.details = details;
	return this;
	}

[boring-cyborg]

Thanks for opening your first issue here!

Be sure to follow the issue template. Your issue will be reviewed by a maintainer and labeled for further action.

[HenrikJannsen]

Yes, that's wrong.
Fixing it would come with non-trivial dev and testing effort.
As far I saw those properties are used only for display and logging, thus represent low risk.