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

Adjust versions in the NFT descriptor #820

Closed
PaulRBerg opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Adjust versions in the NFT descriptor #820

PaulRBerg opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
effort: medium Default level of effort. priority: 2 We will do our best to deal with this. type: refactor Change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature. work: complicated Sense-analyze-respond. The relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or expertise.

Comments

@PaulRBerg
Copy link
Member

This is a child issue of #808.

The task is to adjust the description generated in the NFT descriptor to account for the package tethering, i.e., say LockupLinear v1.1.2 instead of Sablier V2:

return string.concat(
"This NFT represents a payment stream in a Sablier V2 ",
streamingModel,
" contract. The owner of this NFT can withdraw the streamed assets, which are denominated in ",
assetSymbol,
".\\n\\n- Stream ID: ",
streamId,
"\\n- ",
streamingModel,
" Address: ",
sablierAddress,
"\\n- ",
assetSymbol,
" Address: ",
assetAddress,
"\\n\\n",
unicode"⚠️ WARNING: Transferring the NFT makes the new owner the recipient of the stream. The funds are not automatically withdrawn for the previous recipient."
);
}

@PaulRBerg PaulRBerg added type: refactor Change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature. priority: 2 We will do our best to deal with this. work: complicated Sense-analyze-respond. The relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or expertise. effort: medium Default level of effort. labels Feb 8, 2024
@andreivladbrg
Copy link
Member

andreivladbrg commented Feb 8, 2024

Let's add this issue as a comment in the main one, there is no need to create a separate one

@PaulRBerg
Copy link
Member Author

@andreivladbrg but @smol-ninja has suggested opening separate issues for each subtask.

I don't mind either way. You should resolve it between the two of you.

@smol-ninja smol-ninja mentioned this issue Feb 12, 2024
5 tasks
@smol-ninja
Copy link
Member

As discussed privately, we decided to create multiple PRs for #808 instead of creating multiple sub-issues for it.

@smol-ninja smol-ninja closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Feb 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
effort: medium Default level of effort. priority: 2 We will do our best to deal with this. type: refactor Change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature. work: complicated Sense-analyze-respond. The relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or expertise.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants