docs: ens.setOwner() clarification + minor Sphinx warning clean-up #228
Conversation
...And the difference from full transfer of ownership for a registrar-registered name.
docs/userguide.rst
Outdated
| @@ -251,13 +253,19 @@ The above example configures 'somename.eth' to resolve to the address of your pr | |||
| Transferring a name | |||
| ------------------- | |||
|
|
|||
| You can transfer ownership of a name you own in the ENS registry to someone else using `setOwner`: | |||
| You can transfer ownership of a name you own in the ENS registry to another trusted account using `setOwner`: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This change seems superfluous. You can transfer ownership to any account, whether you trust them or not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, agreed. Will change back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OTOH, what I was trying to achieve here is catching someone who just jumped into the docs and searched for "transfer name", intending to actually transfer full control of it.
There are two results on that page, and the second one shows:
For example, you can use ens.setOwner to transfer administration of the name to another
Hopefully, they'd still click the link to read the full paragraph, and then realise that ens.setOwner() figuring so prominently in the (un!)ellipsized text is not the contract/function they want to call.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Basically, I wanted to remove the suggestion that this could be used to transfer to someone else.
docs/userguide.rst
Outdated
|
|
||
| :: | ||
|
|
||
| > ens.setOwner(namehash('somename.eth'), newOwner, {from: eth.accounts[0]}); | ||
|
|
||
| Note, however, that if the name was acquired through a registrar, such as through an auction described above, this will not transfer ownership of the locked bid! It will also not perform any administrative tasks that a registrar might want to do. | ||
| This way, the bidding/renewal account ``eth.accounts[0]`` can be kept separate from the day-to-day control account ``newOwner``. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't the only reason to set owners through ENS; only 2LD names under .eth have corresponding deeds. I would just leave out this paragraph entirely.
…lresolver-2 mainnet + goerli universalresolver deploy
This PR aims to clarify that
ens.setOwner()is not meant for full ownership transfer of names acquired through the.ethRegistrar (as highligted in a recent gitter discussion).The last commit 1e6e8f2 is not related, but got tacked on to quell Sphinx's warnings, as it's otherwise difficult to check changes locally.
See doc example in my RTD.
Note: CI seems to fail in my repo. :/