[sui framework] Adds mint_and_transfer and burn_ entrypoints, changes argument order in mint() #2655
Conversation
damirka
requested review from
lxfind,
awelc,
tnowacki,
sblackshear and
kchalkias
| @@ -170,9 +170,23 @@ module sui::coin { | |||
|
|
|||
| // === Entrypoints === | |||
|
|
|||
| /// Mint `amount` of `Coin` and send it to `recipient`. Invokes `mint()`. | |||
| public entry fun mint_<T>( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I totally agree with the requirement of having entry functions for these flows (as it will help new Coins to be created in just a few lines of code), but we need to agree on the naming convention. Is the _ the pattern we're looking for as best practice here or mint_to_sender etc? @tnowacki
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The _ convention was from when you actually needed a separate function for visibility reasons.
This feels a bit different though since the functionality is actually different. I would advise something like mint_and_transfer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tnowacki what do you think about burn_ in that context?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The one where it drops the u64? Feels okay.
I would ask yourself, What would the and_<verb> version be? If it is un-interesting, just an _ is fine. If its something like and_transfer_to_someone, you probably want a different name or suffix
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@damirka agree with Sam re accepting this to unblock, can you work on the test failures? Maybe we should either have a separate PR with the field swapping on the old api refactoring that breaks tests, so this PR only deals with the new api OR we resolve all failed tests (in order to be able to merge)
damirka
changed the title
… argument order in mint() (#2655)
Closes #2653
Closes #2654