Skip to content

Conversation

@ffmcgee725
Copy link
Contributor

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

@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 changed the title CAIP-X - Extension ID Target Type Specification CAIP-341 - Extension ID Target Type Specification Dec 12, 2024
@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 requested a review from adonesky1 December 12, 2024 17:58
@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 requested a review from jiexi December 12, 2024 18:36
---
caip: 341
title: Extension ID Target Type Specification
author: [Joao Tavares] (@ffmcgee725)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
author: [Joao Tavares] (@ffmcgee725)
author: Joao Tavares (@ffmcgee725)

i'm hoping it's this line, and not something else, that is tripping up the github internal YAML parser
image

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

resolved in 916e37e

@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this closes #294 ?

Example of establishing a connection and sending a message:

```ts
const port = chrome.runtime.connect(walletData.target.value);
Copy link
Member

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

Copy link
Collaborator

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...

Copy link
Collaborator

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

Copy link
Contributor Author

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>
@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

i think we're good to merge with any WG participant approving

@ffmcgee725 ffmcgee725 requested a review from pedrouid April 15, 2025 14:10
@jiexi
Copy link
Contributor

jiexi commented Apr 15, 2025

i think this should be inlined into the CAIP that describes the new transport and interface itself #348

@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

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 😄

Copy link
Collaborator

@bumblefudge bumblefudge left a 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

ffmcgee725 and others added 4 commits June 13, 2025 11:06
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>
@bumblefudge
Copy link
Collaborator

I think this closes #294 ?

@pedrouid ? approve-and-merge?

Copy link
Member

@pedrouid pedrouid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@bumblefudge bumblefudge merged commit 692847b into ChainAgnostic:main Jul 30, 2025
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 this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants