-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Add NFT metadata #38
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add NFT metadata #38
Conversation
@@ -38,7 +49,7 @@ contract Lock is ILock, ERC721Enumerable, UUPSUpgradeable, DaoAuthorizable, Reen | |||
|
|||
function supportsInterface( | |||
bytes4 _interfaceId | |||
) public view override(ERC721Enumerable) returns (bool) { | |||
) public view override(ERC721Enumerable, ERC721URIStorageUpgradeable) returns (bool) { |
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.
Strictly speaking, we should test that the supports interface check is correctly returning as expected for Enumerable vs URI Storage. Of the 2 I think Enumerable is more important to be able to introspect so would want to make sure that is not lost through the override
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.
True. I added 2 asserts on test/escrow/escrow/Lock.t.sol
to verify both interfaces are supported. I also checked and all the parent functions use || super.supportsInterface(..)
so they should propagate correctly through the inheritance chain.
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.
Looks good
No description provided.