manifest: support NEP-24 #3560

AliceInHunterland · 2024-08-19T08:11:31Z

wrapper generates:

// RoyaltyInfo invokes `royaltyInfo` method of contract.
func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
	return unwrap.Array(c.invoker.Call(c.hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}

but it should be different.

add tests with smartcontact/testdata/

codecov · 2024-09-09T06:20:31Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 72.67081% with 44 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.04%. Comparing base (b8a65d3) to head (cbfda6a).
Report is 24 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty.go	63.80%	25 Missing and 13 partials ⚠️
pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go	25.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go	94.23%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3560      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.26%   83.04%   -0.22%     
==========================================
  Files         334      335       +1     
  Lines       46488    46738     +250     
==========================================
+ Hits        38707    38815     +108     
- Misses       6205     6339     +134     
- Partials     1576     1584       +8

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

pkg/rpcclient/nep11/royalty.go

pkg/rpcclient/nep11/royalty_test.go

pkg/rpcclient/nep11/royalty.go

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/nep24.go

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/nep24.go

pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty.go

pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty_test.go

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/nep24.go

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

AnnaShaleva

And you need to adjust

neo-go/pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go

Line 68 in 14ea5a8

func comply(m *manifest.Manifest, checkNames bool, st *Standard) error {

in the following way:

Extend standard.Standard structure with Required []string field. This field includes standards required by this standard.
In comply() check that standards marked as "Required" are present in the manifest. No compliance check is needed for them, the presence check is enough since compliance is checked by the calling code for all standards.

AnnaShaleva

Also, the test of RPC bindings generator based on the existing NEP contract is missing, we discussed it in DM.

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go

AnnaShaleva

Review is not finished, some new code is uploaded.

examples/nft-nd/nft.go

AnnaShaleva · 2024-10-25T10:09:54Z

examples/nft-nd/nft.yml

+  - name: RoyaltiesTransferred
+    parameters:
+      - name: royaltyToken
+        type: Hash160
+      - name: royaltyRecipient
+        type: Hash160
+      - name: buyer
+        type: Hash160
+      - name: tokenId
+        type: ByteArray
+      - name: amount
+        type: Integer


Not for the NEP11 contract itself, read the spec:

Marketplaces that support this standard MUST emit the event, RoyaltiesTransferred for each recipient, after sending a payment.

so I should remove it from manifest/standard too?

Yes, it's not a part of the standard that belongs to the NEP11 contract itself. But it should be moved to a separate standard, ref. #3560 (comment).

examples/nft-nd/nft.yml

AnnaShaleva

The test is not finished. I need a test with generated RPC bindings.

pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty.go

examples/nft-nd/nft.go

pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty.go

AnnaShaleva · 2024-10-25T10:19:26Z

pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty.go

+	var royalties []RoyaltyRecipient
+	for _, item := range res.Stack {
+		royalty, ok := item.Value().([]stackitem.Item)
+		if !ok || len(royalty) != 2 {
+			return nil, fmt.Errorf("invalid royalty structure: expected array of 2 items, got %d", len(royalty))
+		}
+		var recipient RoyaltyRecipient
+		err = recipient.FromStackItem(royalty)
+		if err != nil {
+			return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to decode royalty detail: %w", err)
+		}
+		royalties = append(royalties, recipient)
+	}


Waiting for the response.

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/nep24.go

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go

examples/nft-nd/nft.go

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

AnnaShaleva · 2024-10-25T10:46:40Z

wrapper generates:

// RoyaltyInfo invokes royaltyInfo method of contract.
func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
return unwrap.Array(c.invoker.Call(c.hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}

but it should be different.

What is your expected result? To me, the auto-generated code looks good although it does not includes named return structures, but it depends on the original contract. As I said earlier, it's a matter of separate issue anyway.

examples/nft-nd/nft.go

AliceInHunterland · 2024-10-25T17:21:25Z

i have:

// RoyaltyInfo invokes `royaltyInfo` method of contract.
func (c *RoyaltyReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
	return unwrap.Array(c.Invoker.Call(c.Hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}

and:

func TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2(t *testing.T) {
	ta := new(testAct)
	rr := &RoyaltyReader{
		Invoker: ta,
		Hash:    util.Uint160{1, 2, 3},
	}

	tokenID := []byte{1, 2, 3}
	royaltyToken := util.Uint160{4, 5, 6}
	salePrice := big.NewInt(1000)

	tests := []struct {
		name       string
		setupFunc  func()
		expectErr  bool
		expectedRI []RoyaltyRecipient
	}{
		{
			name: "error case",
			setupFunc: func() {
				ta.err = errors.New("some error")
			},
			expectErr: true,
		},
		{
			name: "valid response",
			setupFunc: func() {
				ta.err = nil
				recipient := util.Uint160{7, 8, 9}
				amount := big.NewInt(100)
				ta.res = &result.Invoke{
					State: "HALT",
					Stack: []stackitem.Item{
						stackitem.Make([]stackitem.Item{
							stackitem.Make(recipient.BytesBE()),
							stackitem.Make(amount),
						}),
					},
				}
			},
			expectErr: false,
			expectedRI: []RoyaltyRecipient{
				{
					Address: util.Uint160{7, 8, 9},
					Amount:  big.NewInt(100),
				},
			},
		},
		{
			name: "invalid data response",
			setupFunc: func() {
				ta.res = &result.Invoke{
					State: "HALT",
					Stack: []stackitem.Item{
						stackitem.Make([]stackitem.Item{
							stackitem.Make(util.Uint160{7, 8, 9}.BytesBE()),
						}),
					},
				}
			},
			expectErr: true,
		},
	}

	for _, tt := range tests {
		t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
			tt.setupFunc()
			riStackItems, err := rr.RoyaltyInfo(tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice)
			if tt.expectErr {
				require.Error(t, err)
			} else {
				require.NoError(t, err)
				require.Len(t, riStackItems, len(tt.expectedRI))

				var actualRI []RoyaltyRecipient
				for _, item := range riStackItems {
					subItems, ok := item.Value().([]stackitem.Item)
					require.True(t, ok)
					require.Len(t, subItems, 2)

					recipientBytes, err := subItems[0].TryBytes()
					require.NoError(t, err)
					recipient, err := util.Uint160DecodeBytesBE(recipientBytes)
					require.NoError(t, err)

					amount, err := subItems[1].TryInteger()
					require.NoError(t, err)

					actualRI = append(actualRI, RoyaltyRecipient{
						Address: recipient,
						Amount:  amount,
					})
				}

				require.Equal(t, tt.expectedRI, actualRI)
			}
		})
	}
}

and:


=== RUN   TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/valid_response
    royalty_test.go:183: 
        	Error Trace:	/Users/ekaterinapavlova/Workplace/neo-go/pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty_test.go:183
        	Error:      	"[ByteString BigInteger]" should have 1 item(s), but has 2
        	Test:       	TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/valid_response
--- FAIL: TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/valid_response (0.00s)

=== RUN   TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/invalid_data_response
    royalty_test.go:180: 
        	Error Trace:	/Users/ekaterinapavlova/Workplace/neo-go/pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty_test.go:180
        	Error:      	An error is expected but got nil.
        	Test:       	TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/invalid_data_response
--- FAIL: TestRoyaltyReaderRoyaltyInfo2/invalid_data_response (0.00s)

AliceInHunterland · 2024-10-25T21:39:07Z

wrapper generates:
// RoyaltyInfo invokes royaltyInfo method of contract.
func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]stackitem.Item, error) {
return unwrap.Array(c.invoker.Call(c.hash, "royaltyInfo", tokenID, royaltyToken, salePrice))
}
but it should be different.

What is your expected result? To me, the auto-generated code looks good although it does not includes named return structures, but it depends on the original contract. As I said earlier, it's a matter of separate issue anyway.

I wrongly passed as a config file to generate-rpcbinding the same config file as used for contract compile which is why I expected a different result (something like:

neo-go/cli/smartcontract/testdata/rpcbindings/nep_contract/rpcbindings.out

Line 75 in f27de7c

    
           func (c *ContractReader) RoyaltyInfo(tokenID []byte, royaltyToken util.Uint160, salePrice *big.Int) ([]*TestnepRoyaltyRecipient, error) {

). Also tried to write the test for it #3560 (comment) and with that implementation, it didn't work.

roman-khimov · 2024-10-26T09:30:03Z

I wrongly passed as a config file to generate-rpcbinding the same config file as used for contract compile

You're not first one to do this, btw. @smallhive and @tatiana-nspcc both know it happens easily. Long-term this will be solved by removing binding configuration file because of NEP-25.

AnnaShaleva

#3560 (comment) is still missing.

cli/smartcontract/generate_test.go

cli/smartcontract/testdata/rpcbindings/nep_contract/config.yml

examples/nft-d/nft.go

pkg/rpcclient/nep24/royalty_test.go

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

examples/nft-d/rpcbindings.out

AnnaShaleva · 2024-10-31T14:01:41Z

@AliceInHunterland, ready for review?

cli/smartcontract/testdata/rpcbindings/nft-d/rpcbindings.out

examples/nft-d/nft.go

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-01T08:52:51Z

examples/nft-d/nft.go

+	if val == nil {
+		recipients = []RoyaltyRecipient{
+			{
+				Address: owner,


examples/nft-d/nft.go

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-01T09:11:30Z

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/nep24.go

+}
+
+// RoyaltiesTransfer an event that MUST be emitted by marketplaces that support the `royaltyInfo` method.
+var RoyaltiesTransfer = &Standard{


RoyaltiesTransfer an event that MUST

Grammar. Ans it's not an event, make it similar to the reference:

neo-go/pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/payable.go

Lines 8 to 9 in a4633ce

// Nep11Payable contains NEP-11's onNEP11Payment method definition.

var Nep11Payable = &Standard{

var RoyaltiesTransfer

Rename it to Nep24Payable, make a separate constant for this standard. Add it to the list of standards check.

also added Nep24Payable to binding.Generate as mfst.ABI.Events = dropStdEvents(mfst.ABI.Events, standard.Nep24Payable) in case of ctr.IsNep24 = true. Do we need a separate test (new smartcontract in testdata) for it?

Do we need a separate test (new smartcontract in testdata) for it?

Would be nice, and this contract shouldn't be large in fact. A single transferring method is enough for the testing purposes.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-01T09:13:26Z

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/nep24.go

+	Required: []string{manifest.NEP11StandardName},
+}
+
+// RoyaltiesTransfer an event that MUST be emitted by marketplaces that support the `royaltyInfo` method.


It's not true. Marketplaces don't support this method, this method may be supported by NEP11 token contract. If you're copy-pasting from the standard, then make it properly, here's what the standard tells about it:

MUST trigger after marketplaces transferring royalties to the royalty recipient if royaltyInfo method is implemented.

The standard also tells:

The royaltyInfo() function MUST NOT ignore the salePrice, royaltyAmount MAY be dynamic due to salePrice and time.

Marketplaces that support this standard MUST emit the event, RoyaltiesTransferred for each recipient, after sending a payment.

Which is literally my comment. So the comment // RoyaltiesTransfer is an event that MUST trigger after marketplaces transferring royalties to the royalty recipient if royaltyInfo method is implemented. is more correct?

Oh, I should have left a comment to the standard when it was on the review stage. OK, then choose either you'd like.

an event that MUST trigger

Grammar: an event that MUST be triggered

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T09:46:43Z

cli/smartcontract/testdata/rpcbindings/nft-d/rpcbindings.out

+func New(actor Actor) *Contract {
+	var hash = Hash
+	var nep11dt = nep11.NewDivisible(actor, hash)
+	return &Contract{ContractReader{nep11dt.DivisibleReader, nep24.RoyaltyReader{}, actor, hash}, nep11dt.DivisibleWriter, actor, hash}


nep24.RoyaltyReader{}

It's not correct, you have to properly initialize it. Make it similar to var nep11dt = nep11.NewDivisible(actor, hash).

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T09:52:04Z

examples/nft-d/nft.go

+		panic("sale price must be positive")
+	}
+
+	callingHash := runtime.GetExecutingScriptHash()


callingHash

It's not calling, it's executing.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T09:55:35Z

examples/nft-d/nft.go

+	for _, owner := range owners {
+		recipients = append(recipients, RoyaltyRecipient{
+			Address: owner,
+			Amount:  salePrice / 10,


Amount: salePrice / 10,

Allocate variable once and then reuse it. And I'd suggest salePrice / 10 / len(owners) as a unit of royalty payment (consider if there are more than 10 owners), because usually it's some tiny part of the token price that is aimed to support authors; and the rest is taken by marketplace.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T09:55:49Z

examples/nft-d/nft.yml

-supportedstandards: ["NEP-11"]
-safemethods: ["balanceOf", "decimals", "symbol", "totalSupply", "tokensOf", "ownerOf", "properties", "tokens"]
+supportedstandards: ["NEP-11","NEP-24"]
+safemethods: ["balanceOf", "decimals", "symbol", "totalSupply", "tokensOf", "ownerOf", "properties", "tokens","royaltyInfo"]


AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T09:59:28Z

examples/nft-d/nft.go

@@ -34,6 +34,8 @@ const (
 	tokenOwnerPrefix = "t"
 	// tokenPrefix contains map from token id to its properties (serialised containerID + objectID).
 	tokenPrefix = "i"
+	// royaltyInfoPrefix contains map from token id to its royalty information.
+	royaltyInfoPrefix = "r"


For this contract it's not needed because there's a fixed rate of royalty payment for every token.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T10:22:59Z

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

+	}
+	if ctr.IsNep24 {
+		mfst.ABI.Methods = dropStdMethods(mfst.ABI.Methods, standard.Nep24)
+		mfst.ABI.Events = dropStdEvents(mfst.ABI.Events, standard.Nep24Payable)


dropStdEvents

NEP24Payable is represented as a separate standard, can't be done in one case with NEP24.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T10:25:07Z

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

+// dropTypes removes NamedTypes of NEP-24 from the config if they are used only once.
+func dropTypes(cfg binding.Config, std *standard.Standard) binding.Config {
+	var targetTypeName string
+	if royaltyInfo, ok := cfg.Types[std.ABI.Methods[0].Name]; ok && royaltyInfo.Value != nil {


If this method is generic, then you can't use any royalty-relating naming and things like std.ABI.Methods[0].Name inside this method because std can be anything. If this method is royalties-specific, then the method name must reflect this fact and no std argument must be present.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T10:29:17Z

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

+	count := 0
+	for _, typeDef := range cfg.Types {
+		if typeDef.Value != nil && typeDef.Value.Name == targetTypeName {
+			count++


Just return immediately if there's another occurrence of this type. And you don't even need count for that, some bool is sufficient.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T10:29:36Z

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

+	}
+	if count == 1 {
+		filteredNamedTypes := maps.Clone(cfg.NamedTypes)
+		if _, exists := cfg.NamedTypes[targetTypeName]; exists {


s/exists/ok

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T10:30:10Z

pkg/smartcontract/rpcbinding/binding.go

+		}
+	}
+	if count == 1 {
+		filteredNamedTypes := maps.Clone(cfg.NamedTypes)


Too expensive, you don't need it.

AnnaShaleva · 2024-11-06T10:35:08Z

examples/nft-nd/nft.yml

@@ -15,5 +15,5 @@ events:
        type: ByteArray
 permissions:
  - hash: fffdc93764dbaddd97c48f252a53ea4643faa3fd
-    methods: ["update", "destroy"]
+    methods: ["update", "destroy","setRoyaltyInfo"]


Revert it. This section allows contract to call native Management's destroy and update methods, it's not related to the contract itself.

`Required` contains standards that are required for this standard. Signed-off-by: Ekaterina Pavlova <[email protected]>

AliceInHunterland · 2024-11-08T07:18:56Z

pkg/services/rpcsrv/server_test.go

 	nfsoToken1ID                      = "7e244ffd6aa85fb1579d2ed22e9b761ab62e3486"
-	storageContractHash               = "ebc0c16a76c808cd4dde6bcc063f09e45e331ec7"
+	storageContractHash               = "2e0809e43dc0f81dab1b48e45dccbc1148ee2a2e"


@AnnaShaleva could you advise, please, I think tests are failing because storageContractHash is incorrect or maybe was deployed wrongly. However TestCreateBasicChain hadn't any errors and the storage contract wasn't changed.

You need to regenerate basic chain with saveChain = true, then fetch relevant data from the test logs (including storage contract hash) and update RC server test variables. From what I see, the following test is failing:

--- FAIL: TestRPC/websocket/batch_with_single_request (0.38s) --- FAIL: TestRPC/websocket/batch_with_single_request/invokefunction (0.01s) --- FAIL: TestRPC/websocket/batch_with_single_request/invokefunction/positive,_with_storage_changes (0.00s) server_test.go:1434: Error Trace: /home/anna/Documents/GitProjects/nspcc-dev/neo-go/pkg/services/rpcsrv/server_test.go:1434 /home/anna/Documents/GitProjects/nspcc-dev/neo-go/pkg/services/rpcsrv/server_test.go:2541 Error: elements differ extra elements in list A: ([]interface {}) (len=2) { (dboper.Operation) { State: (string) (len=7) "Changed", Key: ([]uint8) (len=5) { 00000000 fa ff ff ff 0b |.....| }, Value: ([]uint8) (len=7) { 00000000 54 b2 d2 a3 51 79 12 |T...Qy.| } }, (dboper.Operation) { State: (string) (len=7) "Changed",

It happens because its results are non-deterministic if you regenerate test chain. To fix it just update expected storage values for this test.
Regarding the second test:

logger.go:146: 2024-11-08T10:29:22.479+0300 INFO Error encountered with rpc request {"code": -108, "method": "traverseiterator", "params": "[f4f4c870-a739-4856-83de-e36795314d16 16406a2a-8065-494a-8892-9b572a9f77f5 1]"} --- FAIL: TestRPC/http/traverseiterator (0.02s) --- FAIL: TestRPC/http/traverseiterator/good (0.00s) server_test.go:3071: Error Trace: /home/anna/Documents/GitProjects/nspcc-dev/neo-go/pkg/services/rpcsrv/server_test.go:3071 Error: Not equal: expected: 99 actual : 2 Test: TestRPC/http/traverseiterator/good

We haven't changed storage contract in any way, and storageContractHash contains correct hash because it's the only contract with iterateOverValues method in the whole repo. Try to regenerate chain one more time and check which values are really stored in the contract storage. Also, try to regenerate chain on master and see if the same error is reproduced.

On master the error is reproduced (changed saveChain to true, generated .acc, changed back saveChain to false, changed constants, run tests). TestClient_IteratorSessions, TestClient_Iterator_SessionConfigVariations - failed.
The same as I have within the newly generated one on nep24. That is why I was thinking about the wrong storage contract hash.

On master the error is reproduced

Create a separate bug for this, and let's fix it firstly. I won't say that the problem is with contract hash, it's something iterator-related (although we didn't touch this code for quite a long time).

Ref. #3671.

Close #3451 Signed-off-by: Ekaterina Pavlova <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Ekaterina Pavlova <[email protected]>

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from 40c7142 to 3a9fdda Compare September 9, 2024 06:12

AliceInHunterland marked this pull request as ready for review September 9, 2024 06:14

AliceInHunterland requested review from AnnaShaleva and roman-khimov as code owners September 9, 2024 06:14

AnnaShaleva reviewed Sep 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

AnnaShaleva reviewed Sep 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/nep24.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from 3a9fdda to 317b65d Compare October 16, 2024 13:27

AnnaShaleva reviewed Oct 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

AliceInHunterland changed the title ~~manifest: add NEP-24~~ manifest: support NEP-24 Oct 18, 2024

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from 317b65d to 4fc2373 Compare October 25, 2024 09:56

AliceInHunterland requested a review from AnnaShaleva October 25, 2024 09:56

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from 4fc2373 to d642090 Compare October 25, 2024 09:57

AliceInHunterland commented Oct 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkg/smartcontract/manifest/standard/comply.go Show resolved Hide resolved

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from d642090 to 8cf1b90 Compare October 25, 2024 10:11

AnnaShaleva reviewed Oct 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

examples/nft-nd/nft.go Show resolved Hide resolved

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch 2 times, most recently from b1d16d4 to f3b7983 Compare October 25, 2024 15:48

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from f3b7983 to f27de7c Compare October 25, 2024 21:21

AliceInHunterland requested a review from AnnaShaleva October 28, 2024 08:42

AnnaShaleva mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2024

Cover example contracts with tests #3648

Open

AnnaShaleva reviewed Oct 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch 2 times, most recently from 89dd8dc to 7b982f2 Compare October 31, 2024 12:37

AliceInHunterland commented Oct 31, 2024

View reviewed changes

examples/nft-d/rpcbindings.out Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from 7b982f2 to 20d25d4 Compare October 31, 2024 14:19

AliceInHunterland requested a review from AnnaShaleva October 31, 2024 14:19

AnnaShaleva reviewed Nov 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch 2 times, most recently from 61e54e4 to 3214732 Compare November 5, 2024 08:59

AliceInHunterland requested a review from AnnaShaleva November 5, 2024 11:23

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from 3214732 to cbfda6a Compare November 6, 2024 09:30

AnnaShaleva reviewed Nov 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

manifest: add Required field to Standard

ea9f91f

`Required` contains standards that are required for this standard. Signed-off-by: Ekaterina Pavlova <[email protected]>

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch 2 times, most recently from 80f6607 to b49d9b6 Compare November 8, 2024 07:11

AliceInHunterland commented Nov 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

AliceInHunterland added 2 commits November 8, 2024 10:21

manifest: support NEP-24

e1312d7

Close #3451 Signed-off-by: Ekaterina Pavlova <[email protected]>

rpcsrv: update testdata/testblocks.acc

0781880

Signed-off-by: Ekaterina Pavlova <[email protected]>

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from b49d9b6 to 7893dbd Compare November 8, 2024 07:22

rpcsrv: add NEP24 test

0a9b4be

Signed-off-by: Ekaterina Pavlova <[email protected]>

AliceInHunterland force-pushed the nep24 branch from 7893dbd to 0a9b4be Compare November 8, 2024 07:44

AnnaShaleva mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2024

traverseiterator RPC server test is failing on fresh chain #3671

Open

	// Nep11Payable contains NEP-11's onNEP11Payment method definition.
	var Nep11Payable = &Standard{

manifest: support NEP-24 #3560

Are you sure you want to change the base?

manifest: support NEP-24 #3560

Conversation

AliceInHunterland commented Aug 19, 2024 • edited Loading

codecov bot commented Sep 9, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AliceInHunterland Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnnaShaleva commented Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading

AliceInHunterland commented Oct 25, 2024

AliceInHunterland commented Oct 25, 2024

roman-khimov commented Oct 26, 2024

AnnaShaleva left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnnaShaleva commented Oct 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AliceInHunterland Nov 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnnaShaleva Nov 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AliceInHunterland Nov 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AliceInHunterland Nov 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AliceInHunterland commented Aug 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Sep 9, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AliceInHunterland Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AnnaShaleva commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AliceInHunterland Nov 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AnnaShaleva Nov 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AliceInHunterland Nov 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

AliceInHunterland Nov 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading