You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For example, with the original Agreement, we were expecting 3 to be "allow" ("in favour of submitter") and 4 to be "block" ("in favour of challenger").
It would be ideal for us to dynamically associate a different dispute frontend / set of ruling options based on the type or instance of IArbitrable used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The Court allows the
IArbitrable
to define as many rulings as they'd like, and assign whatever meaning they'd like to each number.At the moment, we hardcode
3
to be "reject" ("block action") and4
to be "allow" ("allow action"), but this can change based on theIArbitrable
creating the dispute.For example, with the original Agreement, we were expecting
3
to be "allow" ("in favour of submitter") and4
to be "block" ("in favour of challenger").It would be ideal for us to dynamically associate a different dispute frontend / set of ruling options based on the type or instance of
IArbitrable
used.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: