Closed roman-khimov closed 7 months ago
:postal_horn: :postal_horn: :postal_horn: @erikzhang, @shargon, @vncoelho, @devhawk, anyone else :drum: :drum: :drum:
I think we need to move on with this, it's important for dApp development.
Good proposal to improve the user experience
Agreed. When do we merge this?
We need this.
Minor adjustments (no new codes) made based on implementation experience from nspcc-dev/neo-go#3063.
Just for the record: we've successfully adopted this standard to the NeoGo RPC server in https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/pull/3063. It works fine in tests and we'll integrate these new error codes into NeoFS as soon as 0.102.0 is released. There's a couple of issues that will be fixed by the usage of new RPC errors standard.
Let's move it forward, yes.
@roman-khimov, we likely need one more error code: -400
"Access denied" for those methods that require user's authentication. See the https://github.com/neo-project/neo-modules/pull/815#discussion_r1401568346.
@roman-khimov please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.
@dotnet-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]
Options:
- (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.
@dotnet-policy-service agree
- (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.
@dotnet-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"
@shargon @vncoelho lets move this one forward.
This may also be updated constantly with new calls and others.
I'd just add new ones, new NEPs cost nothing and a particular NEP-XX should mean something specific.
I guess we need a number for it now. 23? https://github.com/neo-project/proposals/pull/133#issuecomment-1245574947 is also relevant here, probably.
I guess we need a number for it now. 23?
Since this PR is ready to be merged and is in the final stage, I think 23 is good. We also need to adjust the https://github.com/neo-project/proposals/blob/master/README.mediawiki to include this proposal in the table with "accepted" status and add an "accepted" label to the current PR. I don't know why several "accepted" PRs are not merged yet, but at least we can follow them.
@Jim8y, @shargon, @vncoelho, let's move on with it, what do you think?
Sure, I will take another quick read today, but last time I checked it was good already.
@vncoelho what's the state of this?
FYI, @Jim8y, @roman-khimov, @erikzhang
@gsmachado Its fully implemented and checked by @AnnaShaleva, will be available for the next release.
@shargon need you here
While this hasn't been merged yet, two suggestions related to new attributes:
I think it's good to go. Adding a implement link will be better.
Updated, added implementation links.
LGTM @shargon @cschuchardt88 @AnnaShaleva @vncoelho @roman-khimov @Jim8y https://github.com/neo-project/neo-modules/pull/815 is already merged.
Based on neo-project/neo-modules#728, but differs a bit from it: