Skip to content

Conversation

@LeoComandini
Copy link
Contributor

Following changes in ElementsProject/ELIPs#17

@LeoComandini
Copy link
Contributor Author

This PR attempts to be as much consistent as possible with the existing code.

We could consider adding the token metadata with the same call that adds asset metadata and check consistency there.

Copy link
Collaborator

@RCasatta RCasatta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Concept ACK, checked test vectors matches the one in the elip doc

}

/// Add token information to the PSET, returns None if it wasn't present or Some with the old
/// data if already in the PSET
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we mention in the doc that you need also to add the relative contract metadata?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or should we change add_asset_metadata to optionally accept TokenMetadata?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps both.

In this PR I wanted to be the least disruptive possible, and just add a way to add/get token metadata in the PSET.

We could either:

  • add an alternative method that sets asset and (optionally) token metadata at once (verifying their consistency and contract commitment)
  • change add_asset_metadata to accept Option<TokenMetadata>

But those require a bit of discussion, and it might take time.

A viable approach could be to go with this PR and later add a "safer to use" method with a separate PR.
Then we can deprecate the add/get_asset/token_metadata, or keep them if we feel to.
In this way we can think a bit more about the interface we want to expose, while not blocking who needs to use this new fields.

@RCasatta
Copy link
Collaborator

RCasatta commented Jul 4, 2024

ACK 1166089

@apoelstra apoelstra merged commit 4917d7c into ElementsProject:master Jul 5, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants