Refactoring DID minting

[aaitor]

Description

This PR implements:

• Remove the option of minting/burning NFTs via DIDRegistry. These functions must go through the NFT contracts
• Simplify initialization of NFTs
• Pre-configuration of NFT contracts when clonning

Is this PR related with an open issue?

Related to Issue #

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• Follows the code style of this project.
• Tests Cover Changes
• Documentation

Funny gif

[aaitor]

@mrsmkl , could you review the OpenGSN test? It seems to rely transactions fine for the DIDRegistry but there is a problem with the NFT minting

[mrsmkl]

I cannot figure out how to mint an erc-721 token if it's not minted whyen registering or enabling the nft (except transfer condition w/ mint).
If possible, there shouldn't be overloaded method names, they just cause problems on JS side...

[aaitor]

I cannot figure out how to mint an erc-721 token if it's not minted whyen registering or enabling the nft (except transfer condition w/ mint).

The intention is to protect the contract in such a way only an operator (i.e TransferCondition or the contract owner can mint)

[mrsmkl]

I cannot figure out how to mint an erc-721 token if it's not minted whyen registering or enabling the nft (except transfer condition w/ mint).

The intention is to protect the contract in such a way only an operator (i.e TransferCondition or the contract owner can mint)

The case I was wondering was if the owner of the DID isn't the owner of the contract, but would want to mint it without TransferCondition ...

[aaitor]

The case I was wondering was if the owner of the DID isn't the owner of the contract, but would want to mint it without TransferCondition ...

ERC-1155 can represent a multi-token where different DIDs (from different owners) are minted under the same contract (because of that in the NFT1155Upgreadable contract the DID ownership is validated.

I think for ERC-721 that shouldn't be a normal case. For ERC-721 a user typically will require to deploy/clone a contract that keeps the different tokenIds representing the "mints" from different users for the same asset (DID).

In our ERC-1155 implemention the tokenId is the DID so the ownership can be validated. In our ERC-721 the tokenId is by default a counter and the owner of the DID is the owner of the contract.