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

SNIP-64: Custom Errors for ERC20 and ERC721 #974

Open
zpano opened this issue Apr 17, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

SNIP-64: Custom Errors for ERC20 and ERC721 #974

zpano opened this issue Apr 17, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
needs discussion This still needs discussion or research before deciding if it should be implemented

Comments

@zpano
Copy link

zpano commented Apr 17, 2024

🧐 Motivation
Specification error message

📝 Details
Ref: https://github.com/starknet-io/SNIPs/blob/main/SNIPS/snip-64.md
Refactor every contract error's definition

@ericnordelo ericnordelo changed the title Impl SNIP-64 SNIP-64: Custom Errors for ERC20 and ERC721 Apr 23, 2024
@andrew-fleming andrew-fleming added this to the 3. after milestone Jun 15, 2024
@andrew-fleming andrew-fleming modified the milestones: 3. after, 2. next Aug 9, 2024
@ggonzalez94 ggonzalez94 modified the milestones: 1. current, 2. next Sep 3, 2024
@ggonzalez94 ggonzalez94 added the needs discussion This still needs discussion or research before deciding if it should be implemented label Sep 17, 2024
@sprtd
Copy link

sprtd commented Sep 20, 2024

I'm interested in contributing and would like to know if there is a link or resource that captures previous discussions or decisions on this issue. This would help me understand the current status and next steps

@ggonzalez94
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @sprtd thanks for your interest in contributing! We are still discussing wether we want to implement this(but have decided not to do it in the short term). We still need to evaluate a few things:

  • How much adoption does the SNIP have?
  • What are gas cost implications of doing this formatting
  • This is a breaking change since it changes the API of the contracts, which are ones of the most widely used in the library. We need to communicate in anticipation this change.

If you have thoughts about any of this or have seen demand feel free to leave it in the comments. In the meantime if you see any other issue that is a good fit feel free to let us know :)

@ggonzalez94 ggonzalez94 removed this from the 1. current milestone Sep 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs discussion This still needs discussion or research before deciding if it should be implemented
Projects
Status: 📋 Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants