Display the reason for auto-disabling an open offer.

[ghost]

Fixes #6127. Users have complained that when fee validation flags & disables their offer, they have no idea why.
This PR adds a status which is shown to the UI when an offer has been disabled.
The disabled reason is shown in Open Offers via the shield icon tooltip and globally via a notification.

Reasons an offer can be flagged:

• BTC fee tx not found
• BSQ fee tx not found
• Maker Fee underpaid
• Taker Fee underpaid
• Fee receiver not a recognised address
• JSON parsing failure

An offer can also become disabled if the user chooses a Trigger price #4998. This reason is also shown on the shield icon and notification.

Key features:

• Adds an enum of potential fee validation reasons.
• Shows the reason to Maker in Open Offers if there was an issue with the maker fee. Previously would silently disable the offer.
• Shows the reason to Taker in Take Offer, if there was an issue with the maker fee. Previously would say maker validation failed.
• Shows the reason to Maker & Taker in Trade Step 2, if there was an issue with the taker fee. Previously would say taker validation failed.

Bug Fix:

In prior releases, sometimes there would be a false flagging of the offer when checked at startup because the BSQ tx was not yet available. This PR includes a fix to postpone the initial check until a minute after the boostrapping.

Screenshots:

 

 

---

Fixes #6959

[ghost]

Added 265ca17 Fixes #6959

[ghost]

I created this PR as a result of numerous requests during the year, both via #6127 and Matrix chat.
Maintainers, would you prefer the two included bugfixes moved into separate PRs?

[pazza83]

Looks like a great addition.

I think the trade amount being higher than a user's Bisq's 'trade limit' settings is also a common reason why offers are not shown.

[ghost]

Not true @pazza83. A user's offer is de-activated (a) while a user edits it. (b) if the trigger price is breached (c) if the fee validation fails.

Indicating the reason for an auto-disable is a nice-to-have, but this PR has included two bug fixes which are higher priority, i.e. they fix issues that can cause failed trades. It would be disappointing if the bug fixes missed the 1.9.15 release due to this larger feature being left on the shelf. Hence my question above, should the bug fixes be separated out so they can be reviewed with higher priority?

[pazza83]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was confused about how the trade limit setting works

[alvasw]

utACK

[alejandrogarcia83]

@alvasw Thank you for reviewing this PR! :-)

[alejandrogarcia83]

utACK