-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
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
DIP 161 Optional Result Field #165
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is awesome!
I don't think there's any big blockers here, but hit me up or dismiss review so we can get it in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
dips/dip-161.md
Outdated
|
||
**CommandResultObject:** | ||
|
||
| Field | Type | Required? | Description | | ||
|------- |------ |----------- |------------- | | ||
| _ObjectType | str | Y | Type of command result object that uniquely defines the shape or other fields within the result | | ||
| recipient_address | str | N | Receiver's on-chain address | | ||
|
||
Other result types may be added if there are other use cases for the result field. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would argue we don't need to define this and should leave delete this
**CommandResultObject:** | |
| Field | Type | Required? | Description | | |
|------- |------ |----------- |------------- | | |
| _ObjectType | str | Y | Type of command result object that uniquely defines the shape or other fields within the result | | |
| recipient_address | str | N | Receiver's on-chain address | | |
Other result types may be added if there are other use cases for the result field. |
Adding DIP 161: optional result field in off-chain protocol as defined in this issue #161