Send the dispute initiator

[grunch]

There’s currently no clear way to determine who created a dispute

reference: MostroP2P/mobile#355 (comment)

[rammaruboina-rgb]

Problem Analysis

I've analyzed the codebase and identified the root cause of this issue. The dispute_action function in src/app/dispute.rs correctly determines who initiated the dispute and sends appropriate notifications:

• DisputeInitiatedByYou to the initiator
• DisputeInitiatedByPeer to the counterpart

However, when the dispute event is published to the Nostr network via publish_dispute_event(), the initiator information is not included in the event tags.

Proposed Solution

Add an initiator tag to the dispute event to make this information available on the network.

Code Changes Required:

1. Update publish_dispute_event function signature:

async fn publish_dispute_event(
    dispute: &Dispute,
    my_keys: &Keys,
    initiator_pubkey: &str  // Add this parameter
) -> Result<(), MostroError>

2. Add initiator tag in the tags list:

let tags = Tags::from_list(vec![
    // Existing tags
    Tag::custom(
        TagKind::Custom(Cow::Borrowed("s")),
        vec![dispute.status.to_string()],
    ),
    Tag::custom(
        TagKind::Custom(Cow::Borrowed("y")),
        vec!["mostro".to_string()],
    ),
    Tag::custom(
        TagKind::Custom(Cow::Borrowed("z")),
        vec!["dispute".to_string()],
    ),
    // NEW: Add initiator tag
    Tag::custom(
        TagKind::Custom(Cow::Borrowed("initiator")),
        vec![initiator_pubkey.to_string()],
    ),
]);

3. Update the function call in dispute_action:

// Convert PublicKey to string for the tag
let initiator_pubkey_str = initiator_pubkey.to_string();

publish_dispute_event(&dispute, my_keys, &initiator_pubkey_str)
    .await
    .map_err(|_| MostroInternalErr(ServiceError::DisputeEventError))?;

Benefits

1. Network Visibility: Anyone querying dispute events can now identify the initiator
2. Consistency: Aligns with the existing logic that already tracks this internally
3. Minimal Change: Only requires adding one tag and passing one parameter
4. No Breaking Changes: Existing functionality remains unchanged

I'd be happy to submit a PR implementing this solution if the approach looks good to you. Let me know if you'd like me to proceed or if there are any modifications you'd suggest!

[grunch]

@rammaruboina-rgb Hi, thank you for your proposal, I agree on most of it, there is only an important detail, in order to avoid leak private information from users we shouldn't display the initiator pubkey, but we can say what role the initiator have, seller / buyer.

[kufre19]

@rammaruboina-rgb @grunch was wondering if this issue has been claimed or still in works?