Token standard #390
Merged
Token standard #390
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ghost
added
feature
ghost
self-assigned this
ghost
force-pushed
the
token_standard
branch
4 times, most recently
from
3057bf5
to
4019555
Compare
ghost
marked this pull request as ready for review
2 tasks
ghost
added
UI
Neylix
reviewed
Jun 22, 2022
Neylix
reviewed
Jun 22, 2022
Neylix
reviewed
Jun 22, 2022
Neylix
reviewed
Jun 22, 2022
prix-uniris
reviewed
Jun 22, 2022
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| assert :ok = PendingTransactionValidation.validate(tx) | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
An additional Test for failing case would be better,
supply: 2 , but three properties or vice versa
Neylix
approved these changes
Jun 22, 2022
Neylix
requested changes
Jun 22, 2022
| properties | ||
| |> Enum.with_index() | ||
| |> Enum.map(fn {_item_properties, index} -> | ||
| %UnspentOutput{from: address, amount: 1 * @unit_uco, type: {:NFT, address, index + 1}} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here we need to check if the id is pre determined by the property "id" as specified in AEIP2
| with {:ok, json_token} <- Jason.decode(content), | ||
| :ok <- ExJsonSchema.Validator.validate(schema, json_token), | ||
| %{"type" => "non-fungible", "supply" => supply, "properties" => properties} | ||
| when length(properties) == supply <- json_token do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As AEIP2 specifiate that we can pre determine the id, if one index of properties have the property "id", all index should have it too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, as the token id is use and makes sense for token and nft, I think we should rename id to id instead of nft_id as defined in AEIP2
ghost
force-pushed
the
token_standard
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2dc35ed
to
ffa51f6
Compare
Neylix
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2022
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Implement the token standard
Fixes #378 #303
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
How Has This Been Tested?
To create a token, we can use the libjs example transaction builder and create transaction of type 'nft' and enter your token specification, for example:
{ "supply": 100, "name": "My Token", "symbol": "MTK", "type": "fungible" }This should create a new transaction where the unspent outputs should be 100.
This test can also be done with fungible tokens:
{ "supply": 3, "name": "MyToken", "symbol": "MTK", "type": "non-fungible", "properties": [ [{ "name": "image", "value": "mylink"}], [{ "name": "image", "value": "mylink"}], [{ "name": "image", "value": "mylink"}] ] }This PR also implement a fee for the NFT creation and minting being logarithmic, so token with high supply will cost more than other with small supply as the UTXO must be created and will cost space and bandwidth.
But providing a fair transaction's fee compared to UCO transfers.
Checklist: