Add ERC827 Token #518

AugustoL · 2017-10-26T23:52:55Z

add missing public identifier in approveData in SmartToken contract remove constact from showMessage function in message helper contract move Message helper contract to mocks folder move SmartTokenMock contract to mocks folder

…taFrom

spalladino

Awesome work. I left a few comments, the most important one on whether we want to support _data versions of increase and decrease approval.

Also: should we have an interface version of the contract, as we are doing with ERC20?

spalladino · 2018-01-12T13:19:58Z

contracts/token/ERC827.sol

+
+     @return true if the call function was executed successfully
+   */
+  function approve(address _spender, uint256 _value, bytes _data) public returns (bool) {


Given that we have increase and decrease approval methods in ERC20, should we add the same to ERC827?

increase and decrease approval mitigate the race condition in the approve method right?
I think it makes sense to add it if it solves a problem in the standard, but if we add it we should add it with the _data parameter too. To follow the same idea for the rest of the functions, that you can call it with or without _data.
Lets propose it in the ERC827 standard for now and bring the discussion there.

Not sure if we should add it as part of the standard. Today, the increase and decrease approval (which help mitigate the approve race condition, as you say) are present in our ERC20 implementation, but are not part of the interface or standard.

I'd just add the _data versions of them for completeness here, and keep that out of the standard for the time being.

Great, I agree, lets do that, Im going to add them

spalladino · 2018-01-12T13:21:43Z

test/ERC827Token.js

+      // Use method #3 approve of the abi to encode the data tx
+      const approveData = ethjsABI.encodeMethod(token.abi[3],
+        [message.contract.address, 100, extraData]
+      );


I understand that the encoding must be done manually due to truffle's limitations for function overloading. That being said, I'd rather find the desired function from the ABI array rather than relying on the ordering, as it is quite brittle; if we add another function later, these tests may break (or worse, may inadvertently test other functions)

You are right! im going to change it :)

spalladino · 2018-01-12T13:22:35Z

contracts/token/ERC827.sol

+    return true;
+  }
+
+}


I can't believe how simple the code for this contract ended up. Congrats for the awesome work. 👏

Thanks to community and maintainers 🎉

AugustoL · 2018-01-12T16:17:58Z

@spalladino how do you think we should have the interface?
What about if we rename the actual contract to ERC827Token.sol and in the ERC827.sol we have:

pragma solidity ^0.4.18;


import './ERC20.sol';
/**
 * @title ERC827 interface
 * @dev see https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/827
 */
contract ERC827 is ERC20 {
  function allowance(address owner, address spender, bytes _data) public view returns (uint256);
  function transferFrom(address from, address to, uint256 value, bytes _data) public returns (bool);
  function approve(address spender, uint256 value, bytes _data) public returns (bool);
}

spalladino · 2018-01-12T19:44:11Z

What about if we rename the actual contract to ERC827Token.sol and in the ERC827.sol we have:

Sounds good! @frangio WDYT?

spalladino · 2018-01-16T13:53:31Z

contracts/token/ERC827.sol

+  function increaseApproval(address _spender, uint _addedValue, bytes _data) public returns (bool) {
+    require(_spender != address(this));
+
+    super.approve(_spender, _addedValue);


Should be super.increaseApproval, not approve

I'm a bit worried that the tests did not catch this one. Maybe make sure that the increase approval test works on a spender that already has a certain approval set?

spalladino · 2018-01-16T13:59:28Z

contracts/token/ERC827Token.sol

+  function increaseApproval(address _spender, uint _addedValue, bytes _data) public returns (bool) {
+    require(_spender != address(this));
+
+    super.approve(_spender, _addedValue);


It seems I made a comment on this line on a previous commit and github is now showing it as on an outdated diff. Copying it here just in case it goes missing:

Should be super.increaseApproval, not approve
I'm a bit worried that the tests did not catch this one. Maybe make sure that the increase approval test works on a spender that already has a certain approval set?

my bad! Yes, it is weird that the tests are still passing, im going to add a check before increase/decrease approval with data are executed.

spalladino · 2018-01-16T22:15:05Z

LGTM! @facuspagnuolo what have we agreed about naming of interfaces vs impls? Is ERC827 for the interface and ERC827Token for the impl ok?

facuspagnuolo · 2018-01-17T14:53:04Z

@spalladino yes! I followed that same approach

Add ERC827 Token

vittominacori · 2018-04-09T09:44:44Z

Hi all, if I try to use the increaseApproval methods (the one without _data) I receive the following error.

Error: Invalid number of arguments to Solidity function.

Any Idea?
Why the ERC20 increaseApproval method in ERC827 tests (here the commit) has been changed respect to the same test on ERC20?

Update: it seems that web3 (0.20.6) is not able to return right method if overloaded with different params number.

frangio added the under review label Nov 10, 2017

theethernaut added review and removed review labels Jan 2, 2018

AugustoL force-pushed the add-smart-token branch from 4b2e2d0 to 509743b Compare January 4, 2018 19:38

AugustoL mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2018

ERC827 Token Standard (ERC20 Extension) ethereum/EIPs#827

Closed

AugustoL added 5 commits January 11, 2018 12:57

Add SmartToken contract with tests and documentation

a4b1cd6

add missing public identifier in approveData in SmartToken contract remove constact from showMessage function in message helper contract move Message helper contract to mocks folder move SmartTokenMock contract to mocks folder

change SmartToken test to work with new linter rules

a806520

Rename SmartToken to ERC827

e57f4be

Delete SmartToken old docs

f36f8e9

Change order of ERC20 methods and call in transferData and transferDa…

4ecdf31

…taFrom

AugustoL force-pushed the add-smart-token branch from 509743b to 4ecdf31 Compare January 11, 2018 16:57

Overload ERC20 funcitons with new _data argument

7bd95b1

AugustoL changed the title ~~Add SmartToken contract with tests and documentation~~ Add ERC827 Token Jan 11, 2018

spalladino reviewed Jan 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

Add findMethod function in ERC827Token test

e911b4d

AugustoL added 3 commits January 15, 2018 20:56

Add increase and decrease approval functions to ERC827 with tests

685d208

change throw for require in MessageHelper contract@

8854966

Separate ERC827 interface in another contract

87f5916

spalladino reviewed Jan 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

fix increaseApproval in ERC827Token with tests

7ddd66f

spalladino previously approved these changes Jan 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

AugustoL added 2 commits January 17, 2018 11:01

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into add-smart-token

d060d29

Fix solidity linter errors

2b008f4

Add ethjs-abi dependency needed in ERC827 tests

969466b

AugustoL dismissed spalladino’s stale review via 969466b January 17, 2018 14:22

spalladino approved these changes Jan 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

AugustoL merged commit b0522b9 into OpenZeppelin:master Jan 17, 2018

AugustoL deleted the add-smart-token branch January 17, 2018 14:59

ProphetDaniel pushed a commit to classicdelta/Smart-Contracts that referenced this pull request Mar 9, 2018

Merge pull request OpenZeppelin#518 from AugustoL/add-smart-token

ae80917

Add ERC827 Token

frangio mentioned this pull request Mar 26, 2018

Make ethjs-abi a devDependency #843

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add ERC827 Token #518

Add ERC827 Token #518

AugustoL commented Oct 26, 2017 •

edited

spalladino left a comment

spalladino Jan 12, 2018

AugustoL Jan 12, 2018

spalladino Jan 12, 2018

AugustoL Jan 12, 2018

spalladino Jan 12, 2018

AugustoL Jan 12, 2018

spalladino Jan 12, 2018

AugustoL Jan 12, 2018

AugustoL commented Jan 12, 2018

spalladino commented Jan 12, 2018 •

edited

spalladino Jan 16, 2018

spalladino Jan 16, 2018

spalladino Jan 16, 2018

AugustoL Jan 16, 2018

spalladino commented Jan 16, 2018

facuspagnuolo commented Jan 17, 2018

vittominacori commented Apr 9, 2018 •

edited

Add ERC827 Token #518

Add ERC827 Token #518

Conversation

AugustoL commented Oct 26, 2017 • edited

spalladino left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AugustoL commented Jan 12, 2018

spalladino commented Jan 12, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

spalladino commented Jan 16, 2018

facuspagnuolo commented Jan 17, 2018

vittominacori commented Apr 9, 2018 • edited

AugustoL commented Oct 26, 2017 •

edited

spalladino commented Jan 12, 2018 •

edited

vittominacori commented Apr 9, 2018 •

edited