Add spec for web3inbox #365
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Co-authored-by: Ben Kremer <ben@walletconnect.com>
|
|
||
| // rejects a chat invite by id | ||
| public abstract reject(params: { | ||
| inviteId: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| inviteId: string; | |
| inviteId: number; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From the chat specs: https://github.com/WalletConnect/walletconnect-docs/blob/main/docs/specs/clients/chat/client-api.md
// rejects a chat invite by id
public abstract reject(params: {
inviteId: string;
}): Promise<void>;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just looked at the implementation, you're right it is a number we should reflect this in both specs
| public abstract observe("push_response", Observer<{id: number, response:{error?: Reason, subscription?: PushSubscription }>): () => void; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| abstract class Web3InboxSDK { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we call it client like we always do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Feels off to call it a client since it technically doesn't handle any relay communication on its own
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no hight level API client does, they all use core
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But it's not like push or chat, I really don't think we can compare web3inboxSDK to push and chat. cc @pedrouid
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah these SDKs are multiple clients so it wouldn't make sense to call it a client
|
|
||
| ```typescript | ||
|
|
||
| abstract class Web3InboxSDKChatFacade { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why you call it Web3InboxSDKChatFacade, to me it looks exactly like ChatClient?
do we even need to spec it here? correct me if I am wrong but it looks like a duplicate to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It has the same methods, but not the same event listeners and as of now there's no guarantee it'll always be 1:1 with the chat client, as it may have more functionality moving forward
Co-authored-by: Bartosz Rozwarski <bartus000@gmail.com>
| @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ | |||
| # Web3Inbox SDK API | |||
|
|
|||
| The Web3InboxSDK will encompass both [Push](../../clients/push/README.md) and | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
here again and in many other places you use future tense. Make present more sense?
| // listens to external events. | ||
| public static abstract init(params?: { | ||
| relayUrl: string; | ||
| projectId: string; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Chat and Push clients are dependent on CoreClient, which is responsible for handling networking. Is that the case here as well? If yes, we should inject CoreClient instead of projectId and relayUrl
There was a problem hiding this comment.
W3I will manage push, chat and the core they'll depend on. In the mobile case, the clients will be handled completely externally outside w3i
|
how web3inbox understand do it need to use proxy or chat client? Will be different urls? |
Changes
Question: Since web3inbox encompasses 2 separate clients and does not do any separate relay communication, I've placed into a separate folder. Would appreciate recommendations/suggestions for folder naming.