Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 13, 2023. It is now read-only.

docs: Add Creating Transfers section #316

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 6, 2020
Merged

Conversation

lzpap
Copy link
Member

@lzpap lzpap commented Mar 4, 2020

Related Issues: #284 #268

Description

  • Explanation of how transfers are created
  • Two new figures on transfer creation and available API methods.
  • 3 code examples to show the different ways of transaction creation.

Other changes:

  • Renamed Transaction.get_transaction_validation_trytes() to better reflect its purpose.
  • Add file names to auto generated labels in sphinx.

lzpap added 3 commits March 3, 2020 15:53
- get_signature_validation_trytes() renamed to
  get_bundle_essence_trytes() fo clarity.
- Explanation of how transfers are created
- Two new figures on transfer creation and available
  API methods.
- 3 code examples to show the different ways of
  transaction creation.
Copy link
Contributor

@todofixthis todofixthis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM w/ some suggestions.

docs/transfers.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/transfers.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
def get_signature_validation_trytes(self):
def get_bundle_essence_trytes(self):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💭 This is probably low-level enough that it won't break any application logic, but maybe we should make this part of the next minor release (e.g., v2.3.0 => v2.4.0), just to be safe; what do you think?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably no application uses it, unless it chooses to create the bundle hash itself.
It will be part of the next release, I'm just wondering what is the right approach here. We have in develop:

  • the async changes, which is pretty big with dropping Python 2 and 3.5 support, and adding the asynchronous api.
  • the new networking lib httpx with connection pooling is quite faster than requests.
  • renaming testnet to devnet, this is a breaking change for apps that relied on it.

Should we include all these in a next minor release 2.4.0, or we say we move to PyOTA 3.0.0 since we dropped py 2 support anyway? 😺
Or we wait until summer and reserve PyOTA 3.0.0 for the chrysalis updates?
Probably there will also be some more extended api calls and maybe even account module coming before chrysalis though...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ooh, right. 🤔 Dropping Python 2 support is definitely big enough for a major release. Makes sense to me to bundle it all up in PyOTA 3.

There's no rule that says we have to wait for a long time between major releases; I figure there's no need to make devs wait until Chrysalis, even if that ends up being big enough to justify PyOTA 4 😸

@lzpap lzpap merged commit 25d3914 into iotaledger:develop Mar 6, 2020
@lzpap lzpap mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants