Question about Error: The lock script size of deposit cell at index 0 does not match the withdrawing cell at the same index

[tea2x]

I got the error in the title when withdrawing (withdraw phase1) from a QR lock script to a joyID lock script. These locks have different sizes so that's why i get the error. See https://live.ckbccc.com/?src=nostr:nevent1qqs0ka7l56wwpxhr5pl7x47a0k24zls73crf0cv7apmx3h3fkpaqmkgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgqg4waehxw309ac82unsd3jhyetvv9ujucm0d5q32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9ehx2aqpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7rdadaq

I'd like to ask why is this restricted? If I'm not wrong there's no such restriction in the DAO spec https://github.com/nervosnetwork/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0023-dao-deposit-withdraw/0023-dao-deposit-withdraw.md#withdraw-phase-1

[Hanssen0]

This error comes from here:
https://github.com/nervosnetwork/ckb/blob/041518908e5344a66a2da44a17b033f53a360aad/verification/src/transaction_verifier.rs#L917

I believe this information is missing from the RFC, and suggest that we open an issue there.

[Hanssen0]

This restriction is reasonable, though. If the lock size changed, the free capacity also changed, which will affect the reward calculation.
Well... If the script can check the free capacity directly, that might be better. Which means we can alter the lock and add more capacity for the increased lock size.
But I'm afraid that it's impossible now, since we already enforce that capacity is immutable in the dao script.

[tea2x]

Understood. Thank you for the explanation