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

Support human-redeable ABI format in ContractCondition.functionAbi #370

Open
piotr-roslaniec opened this issue Oct 27, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #557
Open

Support human-redeable ABI format in ContractCondition.functionAbi #370

piotr-roslaniec opened this issue Oct 27, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #557

Comments

@piotr-roslaniec
Copy link
Contributor

  • Support function signatures of the form myFunction(address, uint256):uint256 in addition to JSON ABI format
  • Provides less verbose functionAbi interface
@cygnusv
Copy link
Member

cygnusv commented Oct 27, 2023

I've sometimes seen this notation myFunction(address, uint256):(uint256, bool) that allows you to specify multiple output types

@piotr-roslaniec
Copy link
Contributor Author

ethers refers to this notation as Human-Readable ABI format

@piotr-roslaniec piotr-roslaniec changed the title Support function signatures in ContractCondition.functionAbi Human-redable ABI notation in ContractCondition.functionAbi Oct 27, 2023
@piotr-roslaniec piotr-roslaniec changed the title Human-redable ABI notation in ContractCondition.functionAbi Support human-redeable ABI format in ContractCondition.functionAbi Oct 27, 2023
@derekpierre
Copy link
Member

derekpierre commented Oct 27, 2023

Note that any addition here that is different from the JSON ABI format will need an associated change in nucypher for the nodes to appropriately handle it.

@andresceballosm andresceballosm linked a pull request Jul 29, 2024 that will close this issue
7 tasks
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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants