Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Standard v2 Cadence 1.0 updates #194
Standard v2 Cadence 1.0 updates #194
Changes from 25 commits
ee5c99e
ca0353f
03914e9
21640aa
1a261c0
d9ef40e
2d9a34c
8014190
4311a6c
262c73f
d872c31
c6330af
ef9b4d7
359da96
0649cdf
b959c5b
92526d4
42b00b3
0f2bb28
6958b19
cf9a423
c7aa593
cb3b555
f42de59
88a73f1
3c50d77
60eb711
8531ac6
4347b53
86ca92b
3f3d5a7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I made the return type of this a
Bool
because I thought it might be nice to let people return false if something went wrong instead of reverting. What do you think about removing all the pre-conditions here to help support that? I guess that would make it so we can't emit the transfer event every time though because it might fail. Not sure what is betterThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a good question. My stance is we remove the pre-condition and proceed with your original idea. That said, I think this is a good question to present at the open house this week and see what others think. For the purpose of this PR, I say we leave it as-is until we get more feedback about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This could be a problem because some collections are so large that they can't return the whole list of IDs because it goes over the gas limit. might need to remove this. lets try to get some other opinions though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point. FWIW I think it's best to remove it to keep the interface flexible, but worth bringing up in the open house this week
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we want to proceed here, the problem then is in the
NonFungibleToken.emitNFTTransfer(..., type: self.borrowNFT(id).getType().identifier)
. We'll need to determine if we can emitString?
otherwise theself.getIDs().contains(id)
pre-condition remains necessary. FWIW I'll add the condition back in and leave it as a point of discussion