feat(examples): define metadata & royalty info for GRC721 realm

[linhpn99]

Contributors' checklist...

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
• Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

[n0izn0iz]

I think that purely using a callback based approach might be more suited, so the royalty can be more dynamic
Hence only define RoyaltyInfo in the interface

[sunspirit99]

I think that purely using a callback based approach might be more suited, so the royalty can be more dynamic Hence only define RoyaltyInfo in the interface

I have considered and updated the code according to your suggestions. Can u take a look ? @n0izn0iz

[n0izn0iz]

I see you're trying to follow eth spec, I think we should split the interfaces like so

// base collection info
type IGRC721CollectionMetadata interface {
	Name() string
	Symbol() string
}

// follows eth spec
type IGRC721Metadata interface {
	IGRC721CollectionMetadata
	TokenURI(tid TokenID) (string, error)
}

// on-chain metadata, for on-chain nft games for example
type IGRC721MetadataOnChain interface {
	IGRC721CollectionMetadata
	TokenMetadata(tid TokenID) (Metadata, error)
}

wdyt?

do you intend to close #1960 in favor of this PR?

[n0izn0iz]

also maybe we should rename IGRC721Royalty to IGRC2981 to follow the eth standard
https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/interfaces/IERC2981.sol

[linhpn99]

I see you're trying to follow eth spec, I think we should split the interfaces like so

// base collection info
type IGRC721CollectionMetadata interface {
	Name() string
	Symbol() string
}

// follows eth spec
type IGRC721Metadata interface {
	IGRC721CollectionMetadata
	TokenURI(tid TokenID) (string, error)
}

// on-chain metadata, for on-chain nft games for example
type IGRC721MetadataOnChain interface {
	IGRC721CollectionMetadata
	TokenMetadata(tid TokenID) (Metadata, error)
}

wdyt?

do you intend to close #1960 in favor of this PR?

yeah, i think it's clear

[linhpn99]

@sunspirit9999

Hey, sorry for the delay - part of the team was off for the past week due to national holidays🙏

I need to look into the ERC standards in detail to give you a proper review. I will do this first thing in the morning.

i hope u give some comments for this

[leohhhn]

Hey, thank you for this contribution, and sorry for the delay again 🙏

I left some comments, mostly nitpicks. Please, when you work on them, commit changes for each comment and post the commit under the convo so that I can see that the change was implemented. 🙏

[linhpn99]

@leohhhn I have refactored PR after your review

[linhpn99]

@leohhhn I have refactored PR after your review

Is this PR eglible for merging ? Please feed back if you have any comments

[leohhhn]

Hey @linhpn99, let me take a look at this tomorrow.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 54.96%. Comparing base (abaf103) to head (b811cd5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1962      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.96%   54.96%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         481      481              
  Lines       67407    67407              
==========================================
- Hits        37052    37049       -3     
- Misses      27336    27337       +1     
- Partials     3019     3021       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[linhpn99]

Hey @linhpn99, let me take a look at this tomorrow.

Can u approve the workflows ?

[leohhhn]

LGTM, good to merge after CI passes

[linhpn99]

LGTM, good to merge after CI passes

https://github.com/gnolang/gno/actions/runs/9026807461/job/24822204512?pr=1962

Why am I encountering this error in this workflow? The test still passes locally.

[linhpn99]

LGTM, good to merge after CI passes

https://github.com/gnolang/gno/actions/runs/9026807461/job/24822204512?pr=1962

Why am I encountering this error in this workflow? The test still passes locally.

This test seem to take a long time to execute ( > 1s ), could it be cancelled due to a timeout ?

[leohhhn]

tm2 / test (1.21.x, _test.pkg.bft) (pull_request) is a test case that is bugged out and fails often. Ignore it :)

Merging now! Thank you for the contribution 🚀

[linhpn99]

tm2 / test (1.21.x, _test.pkg.bft) (pull_request) is a test case that is bugged out and fails often. Ignore it :)

Merging now! Thank you for the contribution 🚀

Thank you for your recognition 🤝