Added methods for dynamic nfts #466
Conversation
|
|
||
| it("should create 'Transaction' for modifying creator", () => { | ||
| const transaction = tokenManagementFactory.createTransactionForModifyingCreator({ | ||
| sender: grace.address, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to double check, only the current creator can do this? If so, who would be the new creator?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
from the PR on docs:
The creator of a token can be changed. For this, the token has to be moved to the new creator account. The new creator
account requires `ESDTRoleModifyCreator` role. Also, the token has to be of dynamic type.
| sender: grace.address, | ||
| tokenIdentifier: "TEST-123456", | ||
| tokenNonce: 1n, | ||
| royalties: 1234n, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we should rename this to newRoyalties?
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it("should create 'Transaction' for setting new uris", () => { | ||
| const transaction = tokenManagementFactory.createTransactionForSettingNewUris({ |
| sender: grace.address, | ||
| tokenIdentifier: "TEST-123456", | ||
| tokenNonce: 1n, | ||
| uris: ["firstURI", "secondURI"], |
| tokenNonce: 1n, | ||
| tokenName: "Test", | ||
| royalties: 1234n, | ||
| hash: "abba", | ||
| attributes: Buffer.from("test"), | ||
| uris: ["firstURI", "secondURI"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So that there is no ambiguity regarding what gets changed, we can prefix all the changed fields with "new". E.g. we'll have tokenNonce, but we'll have newTokenName.
Additionally, maybe receive a Token class directly instead of tokenIdentifier & tokenNonce? Or maybe not, to keep consistency with existing methods of this factory?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
prefixed the fields with new... according to the specs. Still using tokenIdentifier and tokenNonce to be consistent.
| @@ -402,6 +418,10 @@ export class TokenManagementTransactionsFactory { | |||
| attributes: Uint8Array; | |||
| uris: string[]; | |||
| }): Transaction { | |||
| if (!options.uris.length) { | |||
| throw new ErrBadUsage(""); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Breaking change? Or fixing change? Message is missing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is now deleted.
| uris: string[]; | ||
| }): Transaction { | ||
| if (!options.uris.length) { | ||
| throw new ErrBadUsage(""); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Message is missing.
| }).build(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| createTransactionForModifyingCreator(options: { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Who is the new creator?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the one who now owns the token and has the ESDTRoleModifyCreator role.
| royalties: bigint; | ||
| hash: string; | ||
| attributes: Uint8Array; | ||
| uris: string[]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Above we have a check on non-empty URIs. Should we have it here, as well?
| royalties: bigint; | ||
| hash: string; | ||
| attributes: Uint8Array; | ||
| uris: string[]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Above we have a check on non-empty URIs. Should we have it here, as well?
| addRoleESDTSetNewURI?: boolean; | ||
| addRoleESDTModifyRoyalties?: boolean; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, optional, to avoid a breaking change 👍
No description provided.