Add functions to update collection name and max supply #78
Conversation
JohnChangUK
force-pushed
the
collection_nam
branch
from
2c47d20
to
ba626b0
Compare
| @@ -45,6 +47,14 @@ module minter::collection_properties { | |||
| tokens_transferable_by_collection_owner: CollectionProperty, | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| #[resource_group_member(group = aptos_framework::object::ObjectGroup)] | |||
| struct CollectionPropertiesV2 has copy, drop, key { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there a reason we can't add this to CollectionProperties? Is it because this is an upgrade to an already deployed contract?
| mutable_name: bool, | ||
| mutable_max_supply: bool, | ||
| ): CollectionPropertiesV2 { | ||
| CollectionPropertiesV2 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this need access control?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this need to emit an event?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This just creates the resource. We emit an event when they initialize this for the collection.
No need for access control, anyone can create this for a resource they own. This is just a struct with values.
| mutable_max_supply: bool, | ||
| ) acquires CollectionPropertiesV2 { | ||
| let property = &mut authorized_borrow_mut_v2(collection_owner, collection).mutable_max_supply; | ||
| set_property(property, mutable_max_supply, string::utf8(b"mutable_max_supply")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it too late for us to deprecate something like event Mutation? Why don't we just define a new event type for each new type of mutation? mutated_field_name feels typo-prone.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is fine, we do this for collection module in Aptos and don't see any problems with this.
JohnChangUK
force-pushed
the
collection_nam
branch
from
ba626b0
to
98aae9d
Compare
JohnChangUK
force-pushed
the
collection_nam
branch
from
98aae9d
to
9189b4e
Compare
JohnChangUK
force-pushed
the
collection_nam
branch
from
9189b4e
to
f1ed95f
Compare
Description
Add support for: