-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 142
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
chore: HIP-755 - add post implementation updates for accuracy #1098
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Luke Lee <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Luke Lee <[email protected]>
✅ Deploy Preview for hedera-hips ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Signed-off-by: Luke Lee <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM (but with some suggestions if you're already doing another revision)
This supports the prior acquisition of signatures and their future submission, as often utilized in direct HAPI transaction submissions. | ||
In order to validate the signatures in the signature map for the `signSchedule(address, bytes)` function call, | ||
a message has to be agreed upon. The most logical message would be the concatenated values of the shard, realm and number of the schedule transaction ID and this value will be used | ||
by convention. | ||
|
||
To support safe and easy direct calls by an EOA in accordance with the security model, new facade methods will be added as part of this HRC 755. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is the only use of "HRC" in this file. Is it supposed to be "HIP"? Or if "HRC" then also spell out the acronym somewhere (footnote)?
In order to validate the signatures in the signature map for the `signSchedule(address, bytes)` function call, | ||
a message has to be agreed upon. The most logical message would be the concatenated values of the shard, realm and number of the schedule transaction ID and this value will be used | ||
by convention. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These last two sentences are less "specification" (the section name) and more "suggestion to developers". Especially the last sentence. I don't suggest moving them elsewhere, but maybe they should be subordinate in some way, e.g., a bullet point?
(This is me ratholing on style again, sorry.)
Description:
Update several details in HIP-755 to better reflect the actual implementation.