Skip to content
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

Relationship Module #37

Merged
merged 35 commits into from
Jul 26, 2023
Merged

Relationship Module #37

merged 35 commits into from
Jul 26, 2023

Conversation

Ramarti
Copy link
Contributor

@Ramarti Ramarti commented Jul 14, 2023

  • link setting and config
  • time based links
  • link processors
  • processors can be pending (enabling request/response and similar flows)
  • refactor from Linking to Relationship
  • added a per relationship config disputer address and removed related admin key
  • abstracted RelationshipModule to RelationshipModuleBase, then created ProtocolRelationshipModule with config gating with protocol wide admin keys. This allows to easily create RelationshipModules with other configurations.

Relates to #12

TODO in other PRs:

@Ramarti Ramarti changed the title Linking Module Relationship Module Jul 15, 2023
@Ramarti Ramarti marked this pull request as ready for review July 15, 2023 01:26
@Ramarti Ramarti assigned kingster-will and Ramarti and unassigned leeren and kingster-will Jul 15, 2023
@Ramarti Ramarti requested review from leeren and kingster-will and removed request for leeren and kingster-will July 15, 2023 01:27
@Ramarti Ramarti marked this pull request as draft July 15, 2023 01:34
@Ramarti Ramarti marked this pull request as ready for review July 21, 2023 14:47
Copy link
Contributor

@kingster-will kingster-will left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. a few comments.

@Ramarti
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ramarti commented Jul 24, 2023

@kingster-will I added Natspec to everything relationship related. Please let me know if it's clearer.

Copy link
Member

@LeoHChen LeoHChen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nice job. Love the different processors we added.

so we need to add an allowlist of all valid processors in the protocol level, and franchise level. Anyway, we can add a github issue for this governance process.

@Ramarti
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ramarti commented Jul 25, 2023

so we need to add an allowlist of all valid processors in the protocol level, and franchise level. Anyway, we can add a github issue for this governance process.

I added the issue to solve in other PR:
#42

@Ramarti Ramarti merged commit aacf89b into main Jul 26, 2023
@Ramarti Ramarti deleted the linking_poc branch July 26, 2023 12:27
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.

4 participants