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

Premint - better mint arguments. Mint recipient is specified #294

Closed

Conversation

oveddan
Copy link
Collaborator

@oveddan oveddan commented Oct 24, 2023

Mint arguments are a struct, and now mint recipient can be specified

@oveddan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oveddan commented Oct 24, 2023

@oveddan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

oveddan commented Oct 24, 2023

todo:

  • if mintRecipient is not specified, default to msg.sender

@@ -43,6 +43,12 @@ interface ILegacyZoraCreator1155PremintExecutor {
) external payable returns (uint256 newTokenId);
}

struct MintArguments {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Natspec here for where these get passed?

MintRecipient and MintComment go to fixedpriceminter, while mintReferral is used in the 1155impl contract.

@@ -151,7 +156,7 @@ contract ZoraCreator1155PremintExecutorImpl is
uint256 quantityToMint,
address fixedPriceMinter,
uint32 uid,
bytes memory mintArguments
MintArguments memory mintArguments
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can this be calldata here?

@oveddan oveddan closed this Oct 31, 2023
@iainnash iainnash deleted the premint-better-mint-arguments branch January 11, 2024 15:37
oveddan added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 8, 2024
<!--- Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above -->

## Description

<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->

## Motivation and Context

<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->

## Does this change the ABI/API?

- [ ] This changes the ABI/API

<!-- If so, please describe how and what potential impact this may have -->

## What tests did you add/modify to account for these changes

<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, tests ran to see how -->
<!--- your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->

## Types of changes

<!--- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply: -->

- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New module / feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

## Checklist:

<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. -->
<!--- If you're unsure about any of these, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! -->

- [ ] My code follows the code style of this project.
- [ ] My change requires a change to the documentation.
- [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
- [ ] i added a changeset to account for this change

## Reviewer Checklist:

- [ ] My review includes a symposis of the changes and potential issues
- [ ] The code style is enforced
- [ ] There are no risky / concerning changes / additions to the PR
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.

3 participants