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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Destroy standard #182

Open
wants to merge 23 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
+67 −0
Open

Destroy standard #182

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
23 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1fc1056
Add Destroy Standard
superboyiii Sep 11, 2024
7dc58fb
revert nep-X
superboyiii Sep 11, 2024
235a25b
update
superboyiii Sep 12, 2024
9e57653
fix
superboyiii Sep 12, 2024
24682e3
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
superboyiii Sep 12, 2024
7ea7e1a
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
superboyiii Sep 12, 2024
6d34895
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
shargon Sep 13, 2024
56cbc27
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
shargon Sep 13, 2024
886fcfd
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
shargon Sep 13, 2024
a0a3889
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
shargon Sep 13, 2024
2bf4906
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
shargon Sep 13, 2024
79c1d7d
improve
superboyiii Sep 27, 2024
6b86a9a
improve
superboyiii Nov 28, 2024
671e77b
fix
superboyiii Dec 3, 2024
65aee23
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
Jim8y Dec 4, 2024
e063ea8
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
Jim8y Dec 4, 2024
580ba78
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
Jim8y Dec 4, 2024
196cd7b
Update nep-X1.mediawiki
shargon Dec 5, 2024
a9e434b
improve
superboyiii Dec 13, 2024
a2f728e
more fix
superboyiii Jan 7, 2025
6219503
must/should
roman-khimov Jan 9, 2025
e932658
should/must
roman-khimov Jan 9, 2025
4dc0ba3
style
roman-khimov Jan 9, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 5 additions & 3 deletions nep-X1.mediawiki
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -27,17 +27,19 @@ Neo N3 has the native <code>ContractManagement</code> contract that is responsib
{
"name": "destroy",
"safe": false,
"parameters": [],
"parameters": not restricted,
superboyiii marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
"returntype": "Void"
}
</pre>
This method MUST invoke the <code>destroy</code> method of <code>ContractManagement</code> contract when the contract is destroyed.
superboyiii marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
superboyiii marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

<code>destroy</code> method can have multi parameters for any specific purpose since it's an operation only for contract owner.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can avoid this and have a specific (parameterless) interface just like for update. Suppose I want to create a NEP-DESTROY-compatible CLI command, it'd be harder to do this if one contract has parameters and the other does not.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we strictly require zero parameters in the standard, or it is just a "SHOULD" requirement?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What's the practical value of parameters here? I can only imagine moving tokens from contract address before deletion (which might require some address), but likely they'll be sent to owner or this can be handled in a different manner by contract. Conditional (based on parameters) destroy? Not likely to be useful, owner can do anything already, so if he decides to destroy he will do this. So I'd go with MUST here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Still relevant, this NEP doesn't make much sense if parameters are not fixed.


This function SHOULD check whether the <code>signer</code> address equals the <code>owner</code> hash of contract to avoid security risks. This function SHOULD use the SYSCALL <code>Neo.Runtime.CheckWitness</code> to verify the <code>signer</code>. Details has been explained in [NEP-30](https://github.com/superboyiii/proposals/blob/upgrade-standard/nep-30.mediawiki).
<code>destroy</code> method SHOULD do checkwitness for contract <code>owner</code> to avoid security risks. This function SHOULD use the SYSCALL <code>Neo.Runtime.CheckWitness</code> to verify the <code>signer</code>. Details has been explained in [NEP-30](https://github.com/superboyiii/proposals/blob/upgrade-standard/nep-30.mediawiki).
superboyiii marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

This function is not allowed to call another contract when executing <code>destroy</code> method of native <code>ContractManagement</code> contract since <code>RequiredCallFlags = CallFlags.States | CallFlags.AllowNotify</code>
It's strongly recommended to execute all codes before calling ContractManagement.Destroy() to ensure they can be executed correctly.
superboyiii marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

<code>destroy</code> method is not allowed to call another contract when executing the <code>destroy</code> method of native <code>ContractManagement</code> contract since <code>RequiredCallFlags = CallFlags.States | CallFlags.AllowNotify</code>
superboyiii marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

superboyiii marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
===Events===

Expand Down