-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 216
CAIP-341 - Extension ID Target Type Specification #341
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
CAIP-341 - Extension ID Target Type Specification #341
Conversation
CAIPs/caip-341.md
Outdated
| --- | ||
| caip: 341 | ||
| title: Extension ID Target Type Specification | ||
| author: [Joao Tavares] (@ffmcgee725) |
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.
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.
resolved in 916e37e
|
I think this closes #294 ? |
CAIPs/caip-341.md
Outdated
| Example of establishing a connection and sending a message: | ||
|
|
||
| ```ts | ||
| const port = chrome.runtime.connect(walletData.target.value); |
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.
really like this pattern here... but realistically it's an array so you need an index
but more importantly than correcting this typo.... I think it raises the question of how valuable is it for target to be an array
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.
discuss at monday's meeting? approve either way? i feel like we might be overdue to decide on that array-of-objects/single-object question...
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.
discussed out-of-band, array is fine, we should publish this as a draft to get more eyes on it, and address later if evaluators/integraters push back
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.
fixed in 913a61f
Co-authored-by: ffmcgee <51971598+ffmcgee725@users.noreply.github.com>
|
i think we're good to merge with any WG participant approving |
|
i think this should be inlined into the CAIP that describes the new transport and interface itself #348 |
|
haha, I just read these out of order and suggesting the inverse. Whatever the case, I feel like merging both into one PR (whether that PR adds 1 doc or two) would make it easier to approve and ship 😄 |
bumblefudge
left a comment
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.
Some suggested edits for clarity but substantially mergeable as-is
Co-authored-by: Bumblefudge <caballerojuan@pm.me>
Co-authored-by: Bumblefudge <caballerojuan@pm.me>
Co-authored-by: Bumblefudge <caballerojuan@pm.me>
Co-authored-by: Bumblefudge <caballerojuan@pm.me>
pedrouid
left a comment
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.
👍

Defining extension id as a valid target type for wallet data.