Skip to content
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

Add examples for TX_PLAN_* transaction types #66

Merged
merged 26 commits into from
Jan 26, 2022

Conversation

tmccnnll
Copy link
Contributor

@tmccnnll tmccnnll commented Jan 21, 2022

Summary

Part 2/4 of #55, focused on transactions dealing with security plans

Other parts:
Part 1: #63
Part 3: #73
Part 4: #74

tests/CapTable_Example.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
"security_law_exemptions": [
{
"description": "Exemption",
"jurisdiction": "CA"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, this reminded me of a question for the group. The spec says ISO-3166 but doesn't specify which format. There's 3166-1 alpha-2, 3166-1 alpha-3, 3166-1 numeric, and 3166-2.

3166-2 is just a longer version of 3166-1 alpha-2 so I think that's unnecessary.
alpha-3 "may allow a better visual association between the codes and the country names" so is for human readability, probably don't need to support it but if we don't we should specify (and possibly enforce in the schema with string length)

We use 3-letter codes in our system so from our perspective it would be easiest to use 3166-1 alpha-3; at a minimum I think we need to support that. If folks are using other formats we should discuss how flexible we want to be for this field.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ISO 3166-2 is separate from ISO 3166-1, although it relies on it. ISO 3166-2 defines the principal subdivisions of all countries listed in ISO 3166-1.

I like going with one of ISO 3166 alpha-2 or alpha-3, but not both. Supporting both would offload additional work to the consumers of OCF data.

My preference would be for ISO 3166 alpha-2 since it's the most widely used format (sorry @pjohnmeyer). I don't think human readability is a strong reason to go with alpha-3 since the data is going to exist in a complicated JSON structure that isn't intended for manual consumption.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Totally agree that human readability is not the goal. I think your argument for settling on alpha-2 is sound but let's bring this up on the call today.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed in meeting to go with ISO 3166 alpha-2 and to set max length to 2 for fields dealing with country codes. @tmccnnll to create issue.

Base automatically changed from pj/add-tx-examples to main January 24, 2022 22:52
@tmccnnll tmccnnll force-pushed the tmccnnll/add-tx-plan-examples branch from f68b54b to 7c40726 Compare January 25, 2022 03:32
…warrant-examples

Add examples for `TX_WARRANT_*` transaction types
…stock-examples

Add examples for `TX_STOCK_*` transaction types
@JSv4 JSv4 merged commit d32d1de into main Jan 26, 2022
@JSv4 JSv4 deleted the tmccnnll/add-tx-plan-examples branch January 26, 2022 02:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants