Account: allow negative sequence number

[quietbits]

There is a use case for a negative sequence number. For example, we use it in WebAuth.buildChallengeTx (code).

Note

This was introduced during migration. This check does not exist in the current version.

[github-actions]

Size Change: -283 B (-0.02%)

Total Size: 1.75 MB

Filename	Size	Change
dist/stellar-base.cjs.js	695 kB	-102 B (-0.01%)
dist/stellar-base.js	714 kB	-105 B (-0.01%)
dist/stellar-base.min.js	345 kB	-76 B (-0.02%)

_{compressed-size-action}

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates the Account constructor to permit negative sequence numbers, enabling workflows that need to construct transactions with sequence "0" (e.g., by starting from "-1" and relying on TransactionBuilder’s increment-on-build behavior).

Changes:

• Removed the Account constructor check that rejected negative sequence numbers.
• Updated unit tests by removing the expectation that negative sequences throw, and added an eslint suppression for an invalid-type test case.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
src/account.ts	Removes the “non-negative sequence” validation to allow negative sequence inputs.
test/unit/account.test.ts	Removes the negative-sequence rejection test and adds an eslint suppression for an invalid-type test.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

test/unit/account.test.ts:33

• This PR changes the contract to allow negative sequence numbers, but the unit tests no longer assert the new behavior. Add a test that new Account(ACCOUNT, "-1") succeeds (and ideally that TransactionBuilder built from it produces a tx sequence of "0" / increments the source to "0"), so the intended SEP-10-style use case stays covered.

  it("fails to create Account object from an empty string sequence", () => {
    expect(() => new Account(ACCOUNT, "")).toThrow(
      /sequence is not a valid number/,
    );
  });

  it("creates an Account object", () => {
    const account = new Account(ACCOUNT, "100");
    expect(account.accountId()).toBe(ACCOUNT);
    expect(account.sequenceNumber()).toBe("100");
  });

---

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

[Shaptic]

This doesn't seem like a good idea to me tbh, I think any valid use-case should be able to use a sequence number of zero, instead 🤔

[quietbits]

@Shaptic , should we update WebAuth.buildChallengeTx in JS SDK instead? My fear is that others might be using the same pattern. We set the initial sequence number "-1" and then it's increased to be 0.

[Ryang-21]

Nice catch

[Shaptic]

@quietbits we should definitely change that code to not rely on a negative value (seqnum of 0 is enough as an "invalid" check if that's the purpose), and we can re-introduce "no negative numbers" later to avoid the "breaking" (arguably a bugfix) change.